A. Defendant 1, as the site manager of Defendant 2, who subcontracted the instant construction work for the installation of a wooden bridge of Section 3-2 (hereinafter referred to as the “instant construction work”), among the construction works for the construction of a highway between Daegu - Ports, is the person in charge of overall management and management of safety and health affairs for workers in the said construction site;

Although safety assessment, such as safety inspection, etc., should be conducted on potential risks arising from the contractor’s work at a food-frame dismantling work site, etc. as a measure necessary for the prevention of industrial accidents against workers employed by the contractor when a part of a project is awarded at the same place, and the risk should be removed in advance, in relation to an accident recorded in the criminal facts column of the lower judgment, it is not sufficient work space is not secured due to the structural calculation for the contractor’s work within the dismantling block, because the contractor’s work is conducted in relation to the accident stated in the criminal facts of the lower judgment, and there is no sufficient safety diagnosis or safety assessment for the dismantled car’s buffer buffer or emergency stop devices, defects in the buffer or emergency stop devices of the dismantling car, and whether the contractor’s worker is qualified for the dismantling work, and without removing the potential

B. Defendant 2, as the site manager of the three sections for the construction of an expressway between Daegu - Port, Defendant 1 who committed an act on behalf of Defendant 2 for Defendant 2, was in violation of the above provisions regarding the business of Defendant 2.

2. The judgment of the court below

In order to apply Article 29(2) of the Industrial Safety and Health Act to the Defendants, the lower court found the Defendants not guilty on the grounds that Defendant 2 Company: (a) had engaged in the same work at the same place with Defendant 2’s employees pursuant to Article 29(1) of the same Act; (b) Defendant 2, upon examining all the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor, divided the instant construction into four sections; (c) subcontracted the instant construction work into a single one; and (d) subcontracted the road construction and bridge construction work, which is the primary construction work in each section, to the single one; and (e) there was no evidence to acknowledge the fact that Defendant 2, as well as the one engaged in any work together with the one’s one’s one’s one’s one’s one’s one’s one’s one’s one’s other by placing the minimum manager at each section to manage and supervise the site and regulating the entire process.

3. Summary of grounds for appeal by a prosecutor;

The court below interpreted the same meaning of Article 29 (2) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act to apply only to the work of Defendant 2, a contractor, at the construction site of 3-2 sections among the sections of the Highway among the sections of the Highway between Daegu - which are the place where the instant construction work is being performed by the public prosecutor. The same place means one workplace under the management and supervision of the contractor, and the purport of Article 29 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act is to impose on the contractor the responsibility for the management and supervision of the industrial accidents that occur in the work site and impose on the contractor the responsibility for the industrial accidents that occur in the work site, so the interpretation of the court below is contrary to the purpose of legislation and literary interpretation, and Defendant 2 placed Defendant 1, a person responsible for the management and supervision of the site office at the construction site of this case, and in light of the fact that the construction work site of the Highway was subcontracted to some sections of the Highway among the sections of the construction site of this case, the contractor of this case is erroneous or erroneous in the judgment below.

4. Judgment of the court below

First of all, Article 29 (2) of the Industrial Safety and Health Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") provides that "a business owner under the provisions of paragraph (1) shall take measures to prevent industrial accidents as prescribed by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Labor when his/her employees work in a place where there is a risk of industrial accidents as prescribed by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Labor," and "a business owner under the provisions of paragraph (1)" means a business owner under the provision of paragraph (1) of Article 29 of the Act, who conducts part of a business conducted through a contract and is determined by the Presidential Decree.

(No matter whether Article 29(1) or (2) of the Act, a business owner as a person liable to take measures for the prevention of industrial accidents, is the business owner who is engaged in part of a business conducted under a contract at the same place, and is determined by the Presidential Decree. The business owner is obligated to take preventive measures as provided in each subparagraph of Article 29(1) of the Act, under the situation that such business owner is "when the workers employed by the contractor and the workers employed by the contractor work at the same place," and "when the workers employed by the contractor work at the place where there is an industrial accident risk as provided in the Ordinance of the Ministry of Labor," and further strengthens the duty to take preventive measures as provided in the Ordinance of the Ministry of Labor, even if the workers employed by the subcontractor do not work together at the same place, it shall be interpreted that the business owner bears the duty to take preventive measures as provided in the Ordinance of the Ministry of Labor, so the requirement of "work at the same place" as claimed by the defendants cannot be interpreted to the extent that the requirements of the business owner are determined).

Therefore, in determining whether the Defendants violated the duty of Article 29(2) of the Act, first of all, it is necessary to examine whether Defendant 2 corporation constitutes “the business owner who contracted part of the business in the same place” as mentioned above.

In light of all evidence submitted by the prosecutor, it is insufficient to recognize that Defendant 2 is the business owner who has awarded a contract for part of the project performed at the same place, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. However, in full view of evidence duly examined and adopted at the original trial and reference materials bound in the records, Defendant 2 Co., Ltd., from the Korea Highway Corporation which is the ordering person, awarded a contract for the third sections among the new construction works on Daegu - Posi Highway, and sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-con-con-con-con-con-con-con-con-con-con-con-con-con-con-con-con-con-con-con-con-con-con-con-con-con-con-im.

5. Conclusion

Therefore, since the facts charged in this case against the defendants constitute a time when there is no proof of crime, it should be pronounced not guilty pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the judgment of the court below that made the same conclusion is legitimate, and the prosecutor's appeal is dismissed pursuant to Article 3

Judges Kim Chang-sung (Presiding Judge)