업무상과실치사등
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the Defendant, as a person in charge of safety management at the construction site of this case, failed to take safety measures to be taken at the construction site of this case, and was negligent in violating occupational duties, and even if such negligence influenced one of the causes of the instant accident, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged of this case on a different premise
2. Determination
A. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is a person in charge of safety management as the captain at the “F” site near Songpa-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D, and the victims indicated in the attached Form E (year 50) of the lower judgment, including the victim E, are the daily worker working at the above construction site.
On November 11, 2018, the above victims were engaged in removing grasss attached to the right side of the Olympic at the above construction site on November 11, 2018, and there was a risk of traffic accidents by the traffic of the people if they are engaged in the work without installing safety signs, etc. leading to the construction work, etc., and the passage of vehicles is frequent, and since there is no signal, and thus, the speed of the vehicle is rapid.
In such cases, the Defendant, who is the person in charge of safety management at the construction site, has a notice board indicating that the Defendant is a construction site at least 500 meters later, shall be placed at intervals of 100 meters from the construction site, install a safety sign leading the vehicle traffic at intervals of 100 meters from the construction site, install a container that separates the construction site and the road section that can pass from the road. In particular, as in the instant case, the Defendant had a duty of care to place a luminous guide car and prevent the traffic accident in advance due to vehicles that walk around the construction site.
Nevertheless, the Defendant neglected this and did not work at the same time.