Requirements to impose criminal responsibility for realizing a hotel on a person in the position of the chairperson of the hotel.

In order for a person in the position of a hotel to be held liable for criminal responsibility for the realization of a hotel, the position that the person in the position of a hotel is more specific and direct and direct in the position that the person directs and supervises the general and abstract matters in the hotel management, and therefore, the existence of the duty of due care and the existence of negligence can be examined.

Articles 171 and 268 of the Criminal Act

Defendant

Prosecutor and Defendant

Busan District Court (84 High Court Decision 131)

Supreme Court Decision 85Do108 Decided July 22, 1986

The guilty portion of the judgment of the court below shall be reversed.

The defendant shall be innocent.

The gist of the defendant's grounds for appeal is as follows: (a) the defendant died on September 1, 1983 as the wife of the non-indicted 2, who is the former president of the non-indicted 1 corporation; (b) the defendant was officially appointed as the president of the above company on September 14, 1983; and (c) the defendant was entrusted to the non-indicted 1 to manage and operate the above hotel, thereby doing so; (d) the defendant could not be the subject of responsibility in the above hotel accident; and (e) the installation of the above hotel fire-fighting system as well as the accident in this case was not known in advance, and as long as the court below did not know that the defendant did not know that there was a fire-fighting accident in Busan because of the above non-indicted 2's death, it could not be predicted that the defendant did not know that he did not know that there was an administrative error in the court below's decision that the defendant did not know about the possibility of fire-fighting of the above defendant as a result of this case's decision, and there was no error in law.

First of all, among the facts charged in this case against the defendant, the violation of the Fire Services Act and the Building Act that acquitted by the court below among the facts charged in this case, the prosecutor's appeal against the defendant is dismissed due to the judgment of the case remanded (Seoul High Court Decision 84Do1335 delivered on November 4, 1984) and the prosecutor's appeal against this is dismissed as the judgment remanded in this case, and it became final and conclusive that the prosecutor's appeal against this point

Next, the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles as to the defendant's occupational injury or death of the defendant's defense counsel, and the defendant's assertion of realizing the hotel of this case is more specific and direct command and supervision over the hotel management of the defendant in order to be held criminal liability, and the existence of duty of care for the defendant's business and the existence of negligence accordingly can be determined. The defendant denies this, such as the above appeal argument from the court below to the police's first instance court. According to the evidence cited by the court below, it can be recognized that the defendant's direct hotel of the non-indicted 1 corporation which the defendant takes office as the chairperson and the defendant's first instance court's statement to the effect that "the defendant is thought of the victim at the time of signing the hotel management of this case," the defendant's statement to the effect that "the co-defendant 1, who is the defendant's own director of the court below's office of first instance, is responsible for the defendant's direct and direct direction and supervision of the above hotel management work of the defendant."

However, the defendant's statement refers to the duties and authority of the chairperson of the enterprise in general cases, and in the case of the non-indicted 1 corporation in which the defendant was appointed as the chairperson, the operation of the hotel is the most important. Thus, it is not sufficient to recognize that the defendant was in the direction of specific and direct direction and supervision in the management of the hotel (trade name omitted). The defendant's statement of the court below is not in the case of his mother's personal viewing, but in the case of his mother's report and direct direction and supervision over the hotel's room, he is rather a mother and is in the position of receiving instructions, rather than in the case of his mother's report and direct direction and supervision over the hotel's office, and if the defendant prepared one room as the honorable treatment of the defendant who is the chairperson, the hotel's business as well as in the case of the non-indicted 1 corporation in which the defendant had been in the office of the chairperson. Rather, there is no evidence to support the defendant's direct direction and supervision over the hotel's office of this case.

Rather, according to the records adopted by the court below, the non-indicted 1 corporation established and operated the above non-indicted 2 corporation on May 16, 1975. On September 1, 1983, as Non-indicted 2 died of a three-dimensional accident, the defendant, who is a joint property heir, was the chairperson of the above company on the 14th of the same month. However, there was no death after the death of non-indicted 2, and there was no experience in corporate management, the non-indicted 1 of the court below appointed the co-defendant 1 as a real manager and operated as the defendant, and the defendant could not be found to have been in contact with the above non-indicted 1 corporation's office for the purpose of providing new medical treatment, etc. on the 12.8th of the same year, while the defendant was not entirely involved in his business, the above non-indicted 1 corporation's general manager or the manager of the above non-indicted 2's office, who was responsible for the above non-indicted 1's management of the above company's office.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which recognized the liability for the crime of occupational injury or death against the defendant is erroneous in the misunderstanding of facts that affected the conclusion of the judgment by violating the rules of evidence. Therefore, the decision of the court below should not be reversed because there is no need to decide on the appeal of unfair sentencing because the defendant's right to appeal is well-grounded.

Therefore, since the appeal by the defendant is well-grounded, it is reversed in the judgment of the court below for the purpose of Article 364 (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act and ruled again as follows.

Of the facts charged of this case, the defendant, as the non-indicted 1 corporation, was operating the above business as the chairperson of the above non-indicted 4 corporation, and was directly engaged in the hotel management by taking office 1, which is the victim's 4th floor of the court below, and was directly engaged in the adjacent building connected to the above 4th floor, as well as the installation of heating facilities in the second-class tourist hotel and its affiliated building, so that the defendant could not use the above health clubs as poor because of the non-indicted 4's negligence on the ground of the non-indicted 1's accident, such as fire extinguishing and supervision over the above 4th floor of the above 4th floor, and the defendant could not take any measures such as fire extinguishing and fire extinguishing, as well as fire extinguishing and fire extinguishing, even if the fire occurred, as well as fire extinguishing and fire extinguishing, etc., as well as to take all measures to prevent the fire and fire extinguishing and fire extinguishing.

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.

Judges Song Jin-hun (Presiding Judge)