beta
Text
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendant
A shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,000,00 and by a fine of KRW 6,00,00.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant A is not a principal teacher, and it cannot be deemed that Defendant A has a specific duty of care to request supplementation on the side of a swimming pool after confirming the placement of safety management personnel, the installation of safety equipment, etc., and Defendant A, who is not a principal teacher, has a specific duty of care to play on the part of a principal pool rather than a rectangular pool in consideration of the victim’s extension and the force of swimming.
Therefore, the accident of this case cannot be deemed to be due to Defendant A’s breach of the duty of care, which had observed children at the scene of J and K’s negligence who left a swimming pool without justifiable grounds, and despite the fact that there was no possibility that Defendant A performed such duty of care at the time, or that the victim could have discovered and anticipated the victim’s omission in the water before leaving the water, the judgment below convicting the Defendant of the facts charged of this case is erroneous by misapprehending the legal principles on the crime of occupational death and death, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
B. Defendant C’s punishment (three years of suspended execution in January and June, and one hundred and twenty hours of community service) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. In full view of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below as to Defendant A’s grounds for appeal, we examine whether Defendant A breached his duty of care, and the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below, the kindergarten of this case was in office of the principal, S, J, Senior Teachers, K, and Defendant A, a successor teacher, but the principal did not work at the kindergarten of this case at ordinary times in Seoul, and the principal was in fact in charge of the kindergarten of this case on behalf of the principal, J, the principal teacher, was in charge of the principal, and the conclusion of the contract for outdoor interference and use of the swimming pool of this case was in charge of the principal. At the time of the accident of this case, J was composed of 5 young children, and K was composed of 4 young children.