Whether a crime of injury caused by occupational negligence can be imposed on the president in case where the teacher of the kindergarten of the kindergarten of the kindergarten of the kindergarten of the kindergarten of the kindergarten of the kindergarten of the kindergarten of the kindergarten of the kindergarten of the kindergarten of the kindergarten of the kindergarten of the kindergarten of the kindergarten of the kindergarten of the kindergarten of the kindergarten of the kindergarten of the kindergarten of the kindergarten of the kindergarten of the

In order to hold the director responsible for criminal negligence on the occurrence of an accident of the infant, he/she shall be found to have been negligent in neglecting the fact that he/she could have predicted the occurrence of the accident as a person in charge of infant care, and that the negligence was the direct cause of the accident of this case. The determination of the negligence shall be based on the standard for the degree of general attention of ordinary persons engaged in the same kind of work as the director of the infant center, and shall take into account the facility standards, infant care environment, etc. required by the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes at the time of the accident, and shall not demand the other excessive duty of care emphasizing only the responsibility of the person in charge of infant care and the guardian status. In light of the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, the director cannot be deemed to have violated the duty of care, and the director cannot expect that the teacher will arbitrarily use the gas to the gas accident, so it cannot be said that there is a negligence on duty of the director.

Article 268 of the Criminal Act, Articles 8 and 9 of the Infant Care Act, Article 7 [Attachment 2] and Article 8(1) [Attachment 3] of the Enforcement Rule of the Infant Care Act

Defendant

Defendant

Busan District Court Decision 200Ra4210 delivered on February 28, 2001

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant shall be innocent.

1. Summary of the facts charged in this case

On February 12, 200, the defendant is the head of the Busan District Child Care Center A, and around 12:00 on February 12, 200, the court below's co-defendants, who are infant care teachers, were prohibited from using dangerous goods, such as gas in the child care center, and are obligated to establish a plan for emergency situations in the child care center, and conduct regular inspections and training. In the child care for the children, at least two infant care teachers are placed, so that one of the infant care teachers is absent for personal use, and the other infant care teachers are able to care for the children and prevent safety accidents. In addition, the court below's decision did not neglect to establish a plan for the above mobile gas disaster without any corrective device or safety device installed within the child care center, to prepare for an emergency such as fire, etc., and the victim's co-defendants, such as the victim's co-defendants, were not provided with an infant care teacher at least 5 percent of the area of the child care center, and the court below's decision alone did not require the victim to jointly use of the child care.

2. The judgment of the court below and the grounds for appeal by the defendant

In full view of the evidence presented by the prosecutor, the court below asserts that the defendant was punished as a crime of injury by occupational negligence on the ground that he neglected to do so on the premise that he had a duty of care as seen in the facts charged in this case, as seen in the facts charged in this case, and the defendant used the gas accident prevention training for the defendant only at the head room not used by the original students, and received each year, and that the number of the students managed by the joint defendant in the court below is only six and does not violate the duty of care as a person in charge of infant care for infants and infants, and therefore, he did not commit criminal liability.

3. The judgment of this Court

A. Facts of recognition

Comprehensively taking into account records:

(1) At the time of the occurrence of the instant accident, the Defendant, as the head of the childcare center at the time of the instant accident, was equipped with one office, three classrooms, one playground, and one kitchen located in Busan-gu, Busan-gu, with four infant care teachers including the co-defendants of the lower court, and two Domins of the Domins of the Domins of the 60 primary students. (Investigation Record 109 pages)

(ii)The co-defendants of the original instance completed the first-aid standardization process conducted by the Korean National Red Cross on November 26, 1997, and graduated from the Department of Early Childhood Education at the Korean National Red Cross on February 19, 199 and provided that they were employed as infant care teachers at the above Child Care Center on October 1999 (investigative Record 44 pages).

(iii)In relation to which no heating boiler system is installed, the child-care center used the unit for the heating of the unit of the unit of the unit of the unit of the unit of the unit of the unit of the unit of the unit of the unit of the unit of the unit of the unit of the unit of the unit of the unit of the unit of the unit of the unit of the unit of the unit of the unit of the unit of the unit of the unit of the unit of the unit of the unit of the unit of the unit of the unit of the unit of the unit of the unit of the unit of the unit of the unit of the unit of the unit of the unit of the unit of the unit of the unit of the unit of

(4) On February 12, 200, from around 11:00 to 13:30, the Defendant: (a) entrusted the co-defendant of the court below with six original students aged 5 years or older, including the victim, etc., at least 12:00 on the same day; and (b) instructed three infant care teachers and 35 primary students, to go to the Dong office (the investigative record 34,100 pages, and the Domins do not work on the Saturday as of the day of the accident).

(5) On the same day, the co-defendants of the court below reported six original students (such as the victim, etc.) at the above-care center species (path of January 7, 200), but at around 11:50, petroleum was kept in the main room and used the instant gas disaster in the center to the Class-general class where the original students are born at will without the consent of the defendant, who was the president, while he moved the instant gas disaster in the center to the Class-general class where the original students were born at will. On the same day, the accident of this case occurred (the causes and processes of the attachment) while he was influence of the victim's clothes in the AP commercial site, and the co-defendants of the court below did not investigate the causes and processes of the attachment). The co-defendants of the court below and sent the victim and the victim to C in an emergency hospital after hearing the lusium rapidly.

(6)At the time of the occurrence of the instant accident, the Child Care Center was establishing and implementing a safety accident countermeasure plan, and was conducting fire accident prevention training and safety inspection conducted from time to time by the 119 Emergency Squads around August each year, and was equipped with one fire extinguisher in preparation for the fire accident (such reference materials as are submitted by the counsel bound in investigation records 182 pages and the trial records).

(b) Markets:

(1)In order to hold the Defendant liable for criminal negligence in relation to the instant accident, it shall be recognized that the Defendant was negligent in neglecting this in spite of the foreseeable occurrence of the instant accident as a person in charge of infant care, and that the Defendant’s negligence was the direct cause of the instant accident. The determination of whether the negligence was attributable shall be based on the standard of general attention of the ordinary person engaged in the same kind of work as the Defendant, and the facility standards, infant care environment, etc. as required by the relevant laws and regulations at the time of the accident shall be considered, and the responsibility of the person in charge of infant care and the other excessive duty of care that emphasizes only his/her guardian status shall not be required.

(2) We examine whether the defendant was negligent on duty.

(a)First, in spite of the fact that the use of dangerous substances, such as gas in the nursery, has been prohibited, whether the defendant neglected it and has been negligent in using the gas in the nursery which is the nursery.

In light of the above facts, the Busan Metropolitan City Office has selected a person responsible for the above 199 to take into account the safety of the Decree and infants at the time of choosing a person responsible for the above 199. However, Article 7 [Attachment 2] of the Enforcement Rule of the Infant Care Act provides that "it shall be equipped with adequate facilities such as air conditioning and cooling equipment," and there is no specific provision on the type and degree of heating apparatus, the function and performance of each heating apparatus, the size of heating apparatus, the location of facilities and users, etc. It is difficult to readily conclude that the defendant's duty to use the above 9-year heating system is not likely to violate the above 9-year heating system's duty to use the above 9-year heating system because it is not against the above 9-year heating system's duty to use the above 9-year heating system as fuel for the reason that there is no significant difference between the above 1-year heating system and the above 9-year heating system.

Ultimately, in light of the fact that the defendant used the gas accident of this case in the room where the originals do not use it, and that the originals are prevented from using the gas accident of this case, etc., the defendant cannot be deemed to have been negligent in conducting his duties with the use of the gas accident of this case in the room where the childcare center, which is a nursery, is located in the room where the child care center,

(B) According to the above facts, the Defendant has no negligence in formulating a safety accident countermeasure plan and undergoing regular safety accident prevention training and safety inspection, inasmuch as there is no evidence to acknowledge the negligence due to the negligence despite the obligation to conduct regular inspection and training within the childcare center, as it is acknowledged that the Defendant has been negligent in formulating a safety accident prevention plan and undergoing regular safety accident prevention training and safety inspection.

(c)In the case of the infant care, two or more infant care teachers are placed and one of the infant care teachers is placed for personal use, etc., if the infant care teachers are placed for the infant, whether the other infant care teachers are negligent in neglecting the duty of care to prevent the accident, even though they had the duty of care to prevent the accident from being due.

According to the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes such as the Infant Care Act, Article 8 [Attachment 3] of the above Enforcement Rule provides that the Infant Care Teachers shall increase one person per 20 infants and infants aged 3 years or older, and more per 20 infants, and there are no specific management regulations for the original students.

Therefore, whether a person responsible for childcare facilities has a duty of care to care to care for infants and to care for them should be determined individually by taking into account the number of employees, such as childcare facilities, infant care teachers, and the age, number, and condition of the entrusted infants, etc. (other than this, the person responsible for childcare facilities shall be responsible for all accidents that occur to the infant while having one nursery teacher manage the infant, and the above child care center shall have five infant care teachers including the head who is qualified as infant care teachers at the time of the instant accident, and two infant care teachers who assist the infant care teachers shall have more than 60 infant care teachers who work for more than 193 to 196, and shall have more than 10 infant care teachers who work for more than 35 infant care teachers who work for more than 6 infant care teachers who work for more than 35 infant care teachers who work for more than 35 infant care teachers who work for more than 6 infant care teachers at the time of the instant accident, and shall not be deemed to have been assigned to 35 infant care teachers who work for more than 1.

(3) Accordingly, the defendant cannot be deemed to have breached his duty of care as stated in the indictment, and the accident of this case occurred as a result of moving gas disaster that the co-defendant of the court below used only by the defendant to the class of the original student without permission in violation of the instruction of the defendant, who is the president, to the class of the original student and using it for the heating. The defendant cannot expect that he will arbitrarily move to the gas disaster of this case to the original co-defendant, and even in light of this point, the defendant shall not be deemed to have been negligent in his duties (it shall not be deemed that the above occupational negligence was the direct cause of the accident of this case in light of the above circumstances, even if the defendant committed such occupational negligence).

Therefore, the judgment of the court below, on the premise that the defendant has a duty of care such as the written indictment, shall be based on occupational injury and injury to the defendant, shall be erroneous in the misapprehension of the legal principle of occupational duty or causation as expected to the person in charge of child care, or in the misapprehension of the legal principle of illegality affecting the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the facts.

4. Conclusion

Ultimately, the facts charged in this case constitute a case where there is no proof of crime, and thus, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty is erroneous by misapprehending the legal principles or by misapprehending the rules of evidence, thereby adversely affecting the judgment.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the following judgment is rendered after pleading.

The summary of the facts charged in this case is as seen earlier, and as stated above, it constitutes a case where there is no proof of a crime, and thus, is acquitted under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Judges Seo-pypy (Presiding Judge)