logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 창원지방법원 마산지원 2013.09.03 2013고정319
업무상과실치상
Text

The defendant is innocent. The summary of this judgment shall be notified publicly.

Reasons

1. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is the C calendar and is a person who is engaged in the duty of safety management in history.

At around 16:05 on July 4, 2012, the Defendant was a station station located in Yangsan-si D, and at its platform in Seoul, the Defendant was obliged to guide the victim E, who was waiting for the Busan Mung-si Train 1211, to enter the platform, to get out of the yellow safe block, and to prevent the accident from falling off the train and the platform due to the reverse wind that occurred due to the speed of the train, and had a duty of care to rescue the victim by rapidly stopping the train after the accident.

Nevertheless, the Defendant neglected this and did not stop the train while the victim went to the safety block because it was not in the C Station platform, and the victim was unable to stop the train from 7 to 200 meters away from the train line, and the total of 5 matches (120 meters in total) did not stop the train while the body of the victim is over.

As a result, the victim suffered serious bodily injury, such as damage to the voltage of the left side, damage to the pressure of the water on the right side, damage to the water pressure of the water tank, the discharge frame No. 5 in the eth century, the frame of both sides, and the left-hand aggregate.

2. Determination

A. In order to find the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged, it should be premised on the fact that the Defendant has a duty of care to prevent or prevent an accident that occurred to the victim E as the station leader of the instant C Station.

B. However, Article 37 of the Korea Railroad Corporation (amended by Act No. 2012-31, Apr. 4, 2012)’s “Operation Regulations”, which is the Defendant’s business rules, is acknowledged as evidence duly examined by this court, is the case where (i) the engine requests the surveillance of a train with the knowledge that there is anything wrong in the train, and the entrance of the fixed programming train handling passengers is not opened or closed linked, provided that the supervisor is not a supervisor.

arrow