산업안전보건법위반
The defendant shall be innocent.
1. In order to prevent explosion or fire due to the existence of inflammable, inflammable, or inflammable objects, the owner of the instant charges must take measures, such as ventilation, ventilation, and removal of dust dust, etc., at a place where an explosion or fire is likely to occur due to the relevant steam, gas, or dust, and shall install gas inspection and alarm devices equipped with the gas inspection and alarm performance in order to detect explosion or fire in advance by steam or gas.
Nevertheless, around September 12, 2017, the Defendant did not install gas inspection and warning devices to detect explosion or fire in the “C” restaurant operated by the Defendant in Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, despite using LPG gas.
2. The former Industrial Safety and Health Act (amended by Act No. 8475 of May 17, 2007) provides a business owner’s duty to take safety measures under Article 23(1) and provides that a business owner may be punished even in cases where a violation of the said Act was committed by a person other than the business owner. Thus, a violation of Articles 67 subparag. 1 and 23(3) of the said Act is established only when the business owner instructs the business owner to take safety measures under Article 23(3) without taking safety measures under the rules on the industrial safety standards at the place of business operated by him/her, or neglects to take safety measures despite being aware of the fact that the above work was performed without taking safety measures. It is not established merely by the fact that the business owner’s aforementioned dangerous work at the place of business was performed without taking safety measures under Article 71.
(See Supreme Court Decision 2008Do7834, Sept. 9, 2010). The following is acknowledged based on the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court.