If the defendant does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.

On August 11, 2016, around 09:11, 2016, the Defendant instructed the purification work of septic tanks at the construction site of the Busan Dong-gu building C, Busan.

At this time, there was a duty of care to prevent accidents by recognizing in advance the possibility of falling on the opening of the open septic tank in the construction site by the general public, who installed the model house open within the construction site, and by posting a sufficiently strawle and an guide to safe traffic around the open septic tank in preparation for this, there was a duty of care to prevent accidents.

Nevertheless, the Defendant did not take sufficient safety measures, such as installing 6 containers in the vicinity of 3 meters and 50 cents in width, length, 50 cents) of the opening of the septic tank at which the risk is exposed by negligence, and caused the victim D (59 years old), who visited the model Hashes, to fall into the opening part of the septic tank (50 cent in width, 50 cent in depth, 2 meters in depth), and caused the injury to the victim of the septic tank (50 cent in width, 50 cent in width, 30 cent in width, 50 cent in width, 2 meters in width, in which the number of treatment days cannot be known.

Summary of Evidence

1. The defendant's legal statement corresponding thereto;

1. Statement made by the prosecution against E;

1. Statement made by the police with regard to D or F;

1. A report on the results of field identification;

1. The application of Acts and subordinate statutes to investigation and reporting to the 119 Emergency Rescue Activity at the same time;

1. Article 268 of the Criminal Act applicable to the crimes and Article 268 of the Selection of Punishment Act;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. The defendant and his defense counsel's assertion regarding the defendant and his defense counsel under Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the Provisional Payment Order is asserted that there was no breach of duty of care since the defendant took measures in accordance with Article 43 of the Rules on Industrial Safety Standards, but the defendant's breach of duty of care is recognized in consideration of the following facts acknowledged by the record

(1) The industrial safety standards asserted by the defendant and defense counsel.