산업안전보건법위반
All appeals filed by the prosecutor against the Defendants are dismissed.
1. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence presented by the prosecutor with the summary of the grounds for appeal, the boiler room of this case constitutes “stight space” as prescribed by the rules on the standards for occupational safety and health, and thus, the Defendants’ failure to take preventive measures against industrial accidents constitutes a crime of violating the Industrial Safety and Health Act.
Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the Defendants, is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.
2. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence of this case, i.e., workers T, U, and V employed by Company B, and each investigative agency, the Defendants could have anticipated the possibility of a fire reduction in light of the following: (a) the Defendants’ statement that the carbon dioxide fire extinguishing equipment had not been in operation without fire (Evidence No. 73, 79, 108 of the evidence record) and (b) the fact that the Defendants could not have any specific error in the carbon dioxide fire extinguishing equipment and the electric wire distribution before the instant accident (Evidence No. 91, 92 of the evidence record).
In addition, in light of the records, it is difficult to view the evidence of this case as follows. In addition, the court below’s ex officio rectification is made in accordance with Article 25(1) of the Regulation on Criminal Procedure, on the grounds stated in its reasoning, since it is clear that the court below’s “E” among the judgment of the court below, Nos. 3 and 5 of the 2, “E” of the 2, 2, 6, 3, 2, 3, 2, 3, 2, 3, 2, 3, 2, 4, 4, 5 is each clerical error of “D”. Thus, the court below’s ex officio rectification is made.
Even based on all evidence submitted by the prosecution, it is difficult to view that the boiler room of this case falls under the "closed space" as stipulated in attached Table 18 of the Rules on the Standards for Industrial Safety and Health.
In light of the above, it is just and just to find innocence on the facts charged of this case, and there is an error of law that affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the facts.
(c).