Defendant 1 and one other

Right to work

Attorney Park Jong-il

Defendant 1 shall be punished by imprisonment without prison labor for August and by a fine of KRW 3,000,00, and by a fine of KRW 2,000,00, respectively.

In the event that the Defendants did not pay the above fine, the Defendants shall be confined in the Labor House for the period calculated by converting the amount of KRW 50,000 per day into one day.

However, with respect to Defendant 1, the execution of imprisonment without prison labor shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Defendant 1 is a person engaged in the public bath business, a public health business, under the trade name of “○○bry soup” and Defendant 2 is an employee of “○○brying soup.”

Defendant 1 was engaged in the general management of the safety of customers soup, and Defendant 2 was engaged in the management of customers' safety during working hours, such as safety management of customers and prohibition of entry by inappropriate persons.

1. On June 22, 2007, Defendant 1 had Defendant 2 work as a night worker in the account book at the “○○ ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ (hereinafter omitted)”, and had Defendant 2 gain access to customers by receiving fees from customers, and Defendant 2 had Defendant 1 gain access to customers according to Defendant 1’s instructions.

When sobrying customers enter the brying room, they were locked in the drinking room and died due to the high temperature and the high temperature environment.

Therefore, a person engaged in a public health business is not allowed to enter a person who is deemed difficult to use the public bath due to drinking, etc. by thoroughly controlling and managing the public bath access facilities.

Nevertheless, the Defendants neglected the above duty of care and failed to thoroughly control and manage the public bath access facilities on the same day at around 23:00 on the same day, and did not control the access of the victim ○○ (35 years of age) who is difficult to use the bath in a normal manner due to the brying of 0.270% of alcohol concentration at the above 23:00 day, and did not control the victim’s access to the public bath so that the victim could freely access the said soup, thereby making the victim enter the above soup room in a brying manner, and thereby, the victim entered the brying room within the above soup and brying room and caused the victim’s death with the brying certificate and the physical temperature around 03:49 of the same month.

As a result, the Defendants conspired to cause the death of the victim's grandchildren by negligence, which caused the death of the victim.

2. Defendant 2, as described in paragraph (1), had access to ○○○, which is deemed difficult to utilize normally due to drinking while under the influence of alcohol, etc., and did not observe the matters to be observed by a public health business entity.

3. Defendant 1, who is the employee of the above defendant, violated the code of practice of public health business operators with respect to the business of the defendant 1, as described in paragraph 2.

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Some of the statements made by the prosecution against the Defendants in the suspect interrogation protocol

1. Some statements concerning the Defendants in the police interrogation protocol

1. The witness Nonindicted 1’s legal statement and the witness’s partial legal statement

1. Each police statement on Defendant 2, Nonindicted 5, 6, 7, 8, and 1

1. A written result of autopsy;

1. A report of autopsy between the State and the competent local government;

1. ○○ frying and making soup report;

1. ○○ frying photographs;

1. Each investigation report (the details of the search of doctors in the emergency room of the Hongcheon ASEAN Hospital, and the telephone statement of the appraisal officer of the National Institute of Scientific Investigation);

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

Defendant 1: Articles 268, 30 (the point of negligence in the line of duty, the choice of imprisonment without prison labor), 20(2)3, 4(7), and 21 of the Criminal Act (the point of violation of matters to be observed by a business operator)

Defendant 2: Articles 268, 30 (the point of negligence in the line of duty, the choice of fines) of the Criminal Act, Articles 20(2)3 and 4(7) of the Public Health Control Act (the point of violation of the code of practice by a business operator and the selection of fines)

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

Defendant 1: the former part of Article 37 and Article 38(1)3 of the Criminal Act

Defendant 2: former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act

1. Detention in a workhouse;

Articles 70 and 69(2) of the Criminal Code

1. Suspension of execution (Defendant 1);

Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act

Judge Jina Award