▲ The above photo is not directly related to the content of the article.
A restaurant owner accused of breaking a customer's teeth with a stone from a dumpling soup has been acquitted after two years.
According to the legal profession today (2nd), Judge Lee Jun-gu, the 2th Judge of the Criminal Division of the Seoul Central District Law, acquitted restaurant owner A (18), who was charged with manslaughter at work on the 26th of last month.
Mr. A was put on trial for breaking the molars of Mr. B (64), a customer who ate dumpling soup at his shop in Jongno-gu, Seoul, at about half past 2020 p.m. on June 6, 12.
Mr. B claimed damage by chewing a stone in the soup and ruptured his molars, and he had a number of evidences, including taking photographs of the stones he chewed at the time.
However, Mr. A refused to admit that stones had been mixed in the soup, and he argued that he could not accept that Mr. B's molars had been injured as a result of which he had broken his molars.
In April of the following year, prosecutors charged Mr. A with neglecting to operate a restaurant and to ensure that foreign substances do not mix with food.
Enlarge the image
After hearing the case for two years, the court acknowledged that Mr. A had neglected to exercise caution at work.
It was judged that Mr. B had given consistent statements from the police investigation to the trial, and that he had objectivity by having photographs to prove it at the time of the accident.
In addition, prior to the accident, in 2~2012, he had received insurance payments due to a dental accident, but these circumstances alone did not motivate Mr. B to lie.
However, based on the opinions of various dental clinics, the tribunal found that it was unreasonable to conclude that Mr. B was harmed by Mr. A's breach of duty of care.
After visiting a number of dental clinics for more than two months after the accident, Mr. B was diagnosed by all but one clinic as having normal dental conditions.
In addition, a clinic visited by Mr. B at the time said, "There is no abnormal finding and the patient complains of subjective discomfort," adding, "The reproducibility of the discomfort is small, and the discomfort is not great according to the doctor's judgment."
"Both clinics visited by the victim initially asked to monitor her condition without giving any treatment, and in the end, the victim began to receive treatment about half a year after the incident," the court said, adding that "taking these points together, it is difficult to prove that the defendant was injured due to professional negligence based on the evidence submitted."