Open Decision Ledger · Criminal law
Golf caddy's duty of care under negligent injury in the course of duty
Supreme Court, Dec. 1, 2022, 2022Do11950 (judgment)
Case name: 업무상과실치상
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
Does the 'work' in the offence of negligent injury in the course of duty under Article 268 of the Criminal Act include a golf caddy's care for the safety of participants during play, and what duty of care does that impose on the caddy?
Holding
'Work' covers work whose very performance carries a risk so that safety care forms part of the duty, and also work whose content is to prevent danger to people's life or body. In an individual sport such as golf, a participant must observe the rules and watch around to prevent injury caused by his own play, and a caddy, while helping participants by carrying and handling clubs and advising on play, must foresee the risk of accidents arising from participants' play and take measures to prevent them, thereby bearing a duty of care for participants' safety. Since the caddy here knew that the victim stood ahead of A's ball and took no safety measure at all, the conviction for breach of that duty was upheld.
Summary of the holding, verbatim
경기보조원은 그 업무의 내용상 기본적으로는 골프채의 운반·이동·취급 및 경기에 관한 조언 등으로 골프경기 참가자를 돕는 역할을 수행하면서 아울러 경기 진행 도중 위와 같이 경기 참가자의 행동으로 다른 사람에게 상해의 결과가 발생할 위험성을 고려해 예상할 수 있는 사고의 위험을 미연에 방지하기 위한 조치를 취함으로써 경기 참가자들의 안전을 배려하고 그 생명·신체의 위험을 방지할 업무상 주의의무를 부담한다.
Unofficial English translation
A caddie, by the nature of the work, basically performs the role of assisting golf game participants through carrying, moving and handling golf clubs and giving advice on the game, and at the same time, during the progress of the game, bears the duty of care in the course of work to take measures to prevent in advance the danger of accidents that can be anticipated in view of the risk that injury to another person may result from the conduct of a game participant as described above, thereby caring for the safety of the game participants and preventing danger to their life or body.
Disposition
Dismissed Stated in the decision
상고를 기각한다.
Unofficial English translation
The appeal is dismissed.
Form of the test
Elements stated Stated in the decision
업무상과실치상죄의 ‘업무’란 사람의 사회생활면에서 하나의 지위로서 계속적으로 종사하는 사무로, 수행하는 직무 자체가 위험성을 갖기 때문에 안전배려를 의무의 내용으로 하는 경우는 물론 사람의 생명·신체의 위험을 방지하는 것을 의무의 내용으로 하는 업무도 포함한다.
Unofficial English translation
The term "Work" in the crime of negligent injury in the course of work means a task continuously performed as a position in a person's social life, and includes not only a task whose content of the obligation is care for safety because the duties performed are themselves of such a nature as to involve risk, but also a task whose content of the obligation is the prevention of danger to a person's life or body.
Factors
- 사람의 사회생활면에서 하나의 지위로서 계속적으로 종사하는 사무로
- 수행하는 직무 자체가 위험성을 갖기 때문에 안전배려를 의무의 내용으로 하는 경우는 물론
- 경기에 참가하는 자는 자신의 행동으로 인해 다른 사람이 다칠 수도 있으므로 경기규칙을 준수하고 주위를 살펴 상해의 결과가 발생하는 것을 미연에 방지해야 할 주의의무가 있고
- 예상할 수 있는 사고의 위험을 미연에 방지하기 위한 조치를 취함으로써
- 경기 참가자들의 안전을 배려하고 그 생명·신체의 위험을 방지할
Unofficial English translation
• a task continuously performed as a position in a person's social life,
• not only where, because the duties performed are themselves of such a nature as to involve risk, the content of the obligation is care for safety, but also
• a participant in the game has a duty of care to comply with the rules of the game and to exercise caution so as to prevent the occurrence of injury, since another person may be injured by the participant's own conduct, and
• by taking measures to prevent in advance the danger of accidents that can be anticipated,
• the duty to care for the safety of the game participants and to prevent danger to their life or body
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 1988. 10. 11. 선고 88도1273 판결(공1988, 1422), 대법원 2007. 5. 31. 선고 2006도3493 판결, 대법원 2017. 12. 5. 선고 2016도16738 판결(공2018상, 127)
Unofficial English translation
Supreme Court Decision 88Do1273 decided October 11, 1988 (Gong 1988, 1422), Supreme Court Decision 2006Do3493 decided May 31, 2007, Supreme Court Decision 2016Do16738 decided December 5, 2017 (Gong 2018 Sang, 127)
Decisions referred to
[1] 대법원 1988. 10. 11. 선고 88도1273 판결(공1988, 1422), 대법원 2007. 5. 31. 선고 2006도3493 판결, 대법원 2017. 12. 5. 선고 2016도16738 판결(공2018상, 127) / [2] 대법원 2008. 10. 23. 선고 2008도6940 판결(공2008하, 1653)
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
If a player refuses to follow the caddy's warning to wait until the person ahead has moved to safety, how far does the caddy's duty to take further measures extend?
A later decision extending or limiting what counts as 'work' for staff of individual sports other than golf would require this entry to be read again. Any amendment to Article 268 of the Criminal Act, or a decision departing from the earlier cases cited on participants' duty of care, would do the same.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
8 of 8 axes matched GPT-6 Astra (OpenAI, codex CLI) · 2026-10-25
A reader from another model family (GPT-6 Astra), given the official text but not the primary reading, agreed on all 8 axes.
Raw responses and comparison record: Protocol · Blind readings (JSONL) · Axis comparison (JSONL) · SHA-256 (JSON)
Lower-court contrast & scope of application
Lower-court reading vs. Supreme Court holding
Lower-court context: The Ulsan District Court, sitting on appeal, in its judgment of 1 September 2022 (2021No403), held the defendant guilty of negligent injury in the course of duty as a golf caddy. On the eighth hole it found that the defendant parked the electric cart so that the victim got off ahead of A's ball, then, after finding A's ball, putting it back on the fairway and handing over a club, moved off at once towards C, without warning the victim or A of the foreseeable risk of an accident.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court found no error. It held that the appeal in substance disputed the trial court's findings of fact and amounted to complaining about the choice and assessment of evidence, which belong to that court's free discretion under Article 308 of the Criminal Procedure Act. Reading the appellate reasons against the legal principles set out and the lawfully admitted evidence, it found no failure to examine the issue, no breach of the rules of logic or experience, and no error affecting the judgment, and dismissed the appeal with the unanimous opinion of the participating Justices.
Distinguishing conditions
- A case in which the risk of accident arising from a participant's play was not foreseeable at the time, since the caddy's duty is framed around the risk of an accident that can be anticipated.
- A case in which the caddy did take a measure, such as asking the person ahead to move to a safe place or telling the player not to take the next shot until they had done so.
- An injury caused otherwise than by the play of a participant, since the duty stated attaches to the risk that a participant's own action injures someone else.
Record verification notes
Set the file against the two limbs of the duty the Court stated: whether the caddy knew or could see where the person ahead was standing in relation to the line of the shot, and whether any measure was taken. Then confirm the conviction rests on facts proved to the standard in Article 307(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act, since the Court treated the appeal as an attack on the trial court's free evaluation of evidence under Article 308 rather than on the legal test. The rule itself follows the earlier decisions listed, above all Supreme Court Decision 2008Do6940 on participants' duty of care.
From the official text
Points at issue
[1] 업무상과실치상죄에서 말하는 ‘업무’의 의미와 범위 [2] 골프와 같은 개인 운동경기에서, 경기 참가자의 주의의무와 경기보조원의 업무상 주의의무
Unofficial English translation
[1] The meaning and scope of "Work" in the crime of negligent injury in the course of work [2] The duty of care of participants and the duty of care in the course of work of a caddie in an individual sport such as golf
Summary of the holding
[1] 업무상과실치상죄의 ‘업무’란 사람의 사회생활면에서 하나의 지위로서 계속적으로 종사하는 사무로, 수행하는 직무 자체가 위험성을 갖기 때문에 안전배려를 의무의 내용으로 하는 경우는 물론 사람의 생명·신체의 위험을 방지하는 것을 의무의 내용으로 하는 업무도 포함한다. [2] 골프와 같은 개인 운동경기에서, 경기에 참가하는 자는 자신의 행동으로 인해 다른 사람이 다칠 수도 있으므로 경기규칙을 준수하고 주위를 살펴 상해의 결과가 발생하는 것을 미연에 방지해야 할 주의의무가 있고, 경기보조원은 그 업무의 내용상 기본적으로는 골프채의 운반·이동·취급 및 경기에 관한 조언 등으로 골프경기 참가자를 돕는 역할을 수행하면서 아울러 경기 진행 도중 위와 같이 경기 참가자의 행동으로 다른 사람에게 상해의 결과가 발생할 위험성을 고려해 예상할 수 있는 사고의 위험을 미연에 방지하기 위한 조치를 취함으로써 경기 참가자들의 안전을 배려하고 그 생명·신체의 위험을 방지할 업무상 주의의무를 부담한다.
Order
상고를 기각한다.
Unofficial English translation
The appeal is dismissed.
Provisions referred to
[1] 형법 제268조 [2] 형법 제266조, 제268조
Read 2026-10-25 · Cross-read 2026-10-25. All quotes matched against the official text. The Chinese-character placeholders the court used for anonymised parties are given in their Korean readings, and parenthetical Chinese-character glosses are omitted.
Every entry is published only after all quotes have been matched character by character against the official text, and audited by an independent second reading from a different model family across all eight axes. Both agreed axes and text-grounded interpretive divergences are recorded openly. The ledger is a research record, not an assessment of the court or advice on any matter.
Back to the ledger