The defendant is a person working for the removal of a building, and the victim C (41) is a driver of a click season.

On May 12, 2015, the Defendant employed the victim, who is a driver of the digging machines, in the commercial building located around the Do community service center, on May 12, 2015, and had the victim perform the removal work using the digging machines.

In such a case, since the collapse of a building or the roof of a building is likely to cover it, the victim has a duty of care to wear protective outfits, install a hicker, place a monitor around the work site to prevent the collapse of the building in advance, such as the collapse of the building or the collapse of the hicker, and prevent the accident caused by the falling water from occurring.

Nevertheless, the Defendant neglected this and neglected protective equipment to the victim, and neglected the victim who works using the sod H-free so that the victim was placed without any surveillance in preparation for collapse risk, and the victim was covered by the victim who drives the sod scirls away from the ceiling of the building during the above work.

As a result, the Defendant caused the victim to suffer from the above occupational negligence due to the fact that the Defendant had the victim suffer from the lower half of the heart’s chest scarcity which is unknown.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police against C;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to the head of a complaint, medical certificate, and general medical certificate;

1. Article 268 of the relevant Act and Article 268 of the Criminal Act regarding criminal facts and the selection of punishment are acknowledged as the confession of the defendant, and the victim's negligence without wearing protective outfits is recognized as part of the removal work. There are favorable circumstances, such as the fact that the defendant is a small amount of construction work awarded a subcontract amounting to KRW 700,000 for the construction cost.

However, on the day of the case, the removal work was carried out on the day of the case, and without any particular safety measures, even though it is a work involving considerable risk in terms of its characteristics.