The defendant is an employer who acts for a business owner with respect to the matters concerning workers as a site manager of the Dopo-si E [F] located in the Dopo-si, Sipo-si and 1201.

An employer shall not do violence to a worker for the occurrence of accidents or for any other reason.

Nevertheless, on May 19, 2016, G working as the Deputy Chief of Safety at the above site and on May 19, 2016, the Defendant committed violence requiring medical treatment for 14 days, resulting in dispute in the process of obtaining approval with respect to the enforcement of safety management expenses.

2. Determination,

(a) Relevant legal principles;

The facts charged in a criminal trial must be proved by the prosecutor, and the judge should be convicted with evidence having probative value, which leads to the conviction that the facts charged are true beyond a reasonable doubt. Thus, if there is no such evidence, even if there is doubt as to the defendant's guilt, it shall be determined with the benefit of the defendant (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Do3455, Sept. 2, 2003).

B. Determination

On the other hand, among the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the victim G's statement (the witness G's legal statement, the police's statement, the accusation, the accusation) and the injury diagnosis statement, which are the main evidence corresponding to the facts charged in the instant case.

However, in full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court, the victim G’s statement is difficult to easily believe, and the remaining evidence, such as the written injury diagnosis, submitted by the prosecutor, is insufficient to recognize the instant facts charged, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

1) During the process of obtaining approval on the purchase of safety supplies proposed by the victim G from the investigative agency to the date and time from the investigation agency to this court, the Defendant: (a) was in the process of obtaining approval on the purchase of safety supplies proposed by the victim G; (b) while there was a fact that the Defendant, who was in need of vision with the victim G, was satisfing the victim G; (c) however, there was only a fact that the H’s face, which was satisfing from the next side of the Defendant, was destroyed far away from the H’

2) On the contrary, the victim G stated in the investigative agency and this court that “The Defendant tried to open and out the on-site room to avoid a vision in order to avoid the location of a vision, at the time and place specified in the instant facts charged, at the time and place of the safety management expenses,” and stated that “The Defendant had her scambling with the on-site manager, and later, the Defendant got out of the on-site room and other employees had her left part once in the situation where she had scam out of the on-site warden.”

(1) However, at the time of witness H. I and J consistently created a sand position panel into the scene room, and hear the sound inside the site room. At the time, all employees outside the site room were able to see that the Defendant and the victim G have a big sound from the site room. However, there is no fact that the Defendant and the victim G wanted to see the victim's room or see why the victim G was dyped, and that they want to go to the outside of the site room, and there is no other employee (H, I, J, K) who tried to go out of the site room, and tried to go out of the victim's room and to speak in the middle of this case. However, at the time, the Defendant did not know of the victim's faces, and there is no other fact that the Defendant used the victim's faces as the victim's face at the site, including the fact that it was difficult to see that the Defendant and the victim was out of the site room.

3) It is true that the victim G submitted to an investigative agency by the victim G from a medical institution that the above victim was injured by 's erode and tension'. However, as seen above, the victim G entered the date of the above injury or injury on May 21, 2016, which is the date of the occurrence of the above injury, in the process where the victim G attempted to attack to the defendant or by other employees who met the above victim despite the interview of other employees, it is not possible to exclude the possibility of suffering from the above injury. ③ When the victim G was subject to a three-month disciplinary action on June 1, 2016 in relation to the use of verbal abuse and assault against the defendant who is a superior of the victim G, the victim G officer visited the hospital on June 2, 2016, and issued the above medical certificate on May 19, 2016, and the victim’s complaint was made on the same day, it is difficult to readily conclude that the above victim’s injury was inflicted by the above Defendant’s act.

3. Conclusion

Thus, since the facts charged in this case constitute a case where there is no proof of a crime, it shall be pronounced not guilty pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and as the defendant does not consent, the summary of the judgment against the defendant shall not be publicly announced pursuant to the proviso of