(b) Occupational death.

2. (a) B representative director A;

3. (a) C.

4. A. D. Representative Director D.C., Inc.

5. b. E

Attorney Park Jong-soo et al. (for defendant C, corporation D)

Defendant A with a fine of KRW 10 million, Defendant C with a fine of KRW 7 million, Defendant C, and State

Food Company D shall be punished by a fine of 5 million won, respectively.

When Defendant A and C fail to pay the above fine, the period calculated by converting each one million won into one day.

The above Defendants are confined in the workhouse.

[Defendant E]

Defendant shall be punished by imprisonment without prison labor for six months.

except that the execution of the above sentence shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Defendant A is a representative director who operates the painting Corporation B, Inc., a company with seal construction work, G 58-26, G 116, G, and 26, and is responsible for safety and health management for its employees. Defendant C is a person in general charge of safety and health who is responsible for safety and health management for the employees of the construction company, etc., which is located in Busan Gangseo-gu, Busan Metropolitan City H8-402, as the present site of D, a company with construction work, which is located in H8-402. Defendant C is a person in charge of safety and health who is responsible for safety and health

Defendant B, at the construction site of one factory in Yangsan-si General Industrial Complex F-1 block (referred to as "site of construction" hereafter in this subparagraph), subcontracted the steel framed construction to KRW 40,502,00 on February 20, 2018. Defendant D, who contracted the said new construction work with KRW 2,805,000,000 of the construction cost, awarded a subcontract for the said new construction work to B at KRW 40,502,000 of the construction cost.

1. Violation of the Occupational Safety and Health Act by Defendant A, E’s occupational failure, and Defendant A’s occupational failure

Defendant A from March 14, 2018: From around 07:30 to the construction site, Defendant E and the victim J (year 61) had five workers engaged in the maintenance and repair of the steel frame, and the victim had approximately 35 meters work carried out the work using the air frame on the steel frame in the same type work site at a height of approximately 35 meters. Defendant E had the victim move to the next work site after completion of the victim’s painting work.

The business owner shall, in the case of any work in danger of falling down by his workers, pay a safety belt and have him wear a safety belt at a height of not less than 2 meters, and in the case of assembling a mobile signal gauge and performing an operation at the highest part, install a safety signal signal.

Defendant A, as a safety control manager, had a duty of care to prevent accidents by installing a safety signal in the mobile signal gauge at a height of about 2.35 meters, which is a place where workers might fall at the time, and by taking measures to ensure the safety of workers by paying safety caps and safety belts to the workers, and by allowing them to wear it, and Defendant E had a duty of care to prevent accidents by ensuring the safe operation of workers, and Defendant E had a duty of care to check the completion of a signal to prepare for fall, such as the sinking of the workers who completed the painting, and preventing the fall of the workers, after checking the completion of the signal to move to the work site, Defendant E had a duty of care to prevent accidents by moving the mobile signal work site.

Nevertheless, the Defendants neglected this and neglected to install a safety signal at the mobile belt used by the victim, and Defendant A did not confirm whether the victim was prepared against the victim in preparation for the movement of the victim by failing to take the safety cap and the safety belt at the occupational negligence, and Defendant E did not confirm whether the victim was involved in the mobile-type work engine in preparation for the movement of the victim by hand, and on March 14, 2018, by negligence in the course of business where the victim moved the mobile-type system, and did not prepare for the movement of the victim by hand, at around 40:40, he saw the victim as moving the mobile-type system, and did not prepare for the movement of the victim by 2.35 meters. On March 15, 2018: around 53, the Defendant jointly caused the death of the victim in violation of the duty to take safety measures, thereby preventing the death of the victim from being jointly caused by negligence in the course of business.

2. Defendant A

A. The business owner shall take necessary measures, such as installing a ice gate, etc., in order to prevent a sudden movement or passage, with the wheels of the mobile vision.

Nevertheless, on March 15, 2018, the Defendant violated the duty to take safety measures by allowing workers to file a criminal complaint with a worker under the state that he/she was scheduled to install a club in the mobile rain system.

(b) When a business owner establishes a complaint work unit, he/she shall set up in the work unit a fixed amount (not less than five safety rates) and install an excessive increase prevention device for the prevention of disasters, such as mosing, collision, etc.

Nevertheless, on March 15, 2018, the Defendant violated the duty to take safety measures by allowing an employee to file a complaint using the accusation room with an excessive increase prevention device without indicating the light load load.

3. Defendant B

A. The Defendant did not take necessary measures to prevent industrial accidents under paragraph (1) in relation to the Defendant’s business at a time and at a place similar to Paragraph (1) and caused the Defendant’s death.

B. The Defendant committed an act of violation on the grounds that A, an employee of the Defendant, did not take necessary measures to prevent industrial accidents, such as Paragraph 2, in relation to the Defendant’s business at the same time and place as Paragraph 2.

4. Defendant C.

A. Violation of the Occupational Safety and Health Act on March 14, 2018

When workers employed by the business owner and workers employed by him/her are engaged in work at a place where a high risk of falling exists, the business owner shall take measures to prevent industrial accidents, such as the installation of safety and health facilities.

Nevertheless, the Defendant did not take safety measures to prevent industrial accidents against the contractor's workers at the same time and place as paragraph (1).

(b) March 15, 2018;

1) A business owner shall install a safety strings when he/she assembles a mobile string and works at the highest part, and the wheels shall take necessary measures, such as installing a strings, etc., in order to prevent a sudden move or transition.

Nevertheless, on March 15, 2018, the Defendant violated the duty to take safety measures due to the failure to install a safe guard and an Agrept for the mobile rain.

2) The business owner must set up a work plate that meets the standards at a work site with a height of at least 2 meters in height.

Nevertheless, on March 15, 2018, the Defendant violated the duty to take safety measures by failing to install a work launch plate at the two parts and three parts of the outside vision of the work site of the above construction site.

3) The business owner must have a safe passage to be used by the workers at the workplace.

Nevertheless, on March 15, 2018, the Defendant violated the duty to take safety measures due to the Defendant’s failure to install an external non-entry passage to the second and third floors of the work site around March 15, 2018.

4) In order to prevent workers from falling, etc., the business owner shall install at least two safety rail lines equally, and shall install the floor surface and paralleling across the entire length of the rail.

Nevertheless, on March 15, 2018, the Defendant violated the duty to take safety measures because the rail was not installed equally in the course of cutting and re-installationing part of the outer non-intersection safety risks of the second and third floor at the construction site.

5) The business owner shall take measures necessary for the prevention of danger, such as anti-protection lines, in the event that an object is removed or is likely to fall due to work.

Nevertheless, on March 15, 2018, the Defendant violated the duty to take safety measures because he did not remove the protection team at the entrance of the work site at the construction site.

6) The business owner must install safety risks on the open side of stairs the height of which is not less than 1m.

Nevertheless, on March 15, 2018, the Defendant violated the duty of safety measures by failing to install safety risks on the side of entry stairs upper part of the second floor of the factory at the construction site.

7) In order to prevent any danger to workers, a business owner shall conduct a pre-inspection of the work using vehicle-based construction machinery, and the topography, local areas, and geographical conditions, etc. in the workplace, and shall prepare a small-scale operation plan in consideration of the result thereof, and have it conduct work in accordance with that plan.

Nevertheless, on March 15, 2018, the Defendant violated the duty to take safety measures by preparing any work plan while using container pumps, concrete mixtures trucks, and dump trucks, which are construction machinery for vehicles at the construction site at the construction site.

8) When a business owner establishes a complaint work unit, he/she shall install an excessive rise prevention device to prevent disasters, such as collisions, to the work unit.

Nevertheless, on March 15, 2018, the Defendant violated the duty to take safety measures because it did not install an excessive rise prevention device in the police station.

5. Defendant D

A. The Defendant violated the Defendant’s duty to take safety measures, such as Paragraph 4-A, at the same time and place as Paragraph 4-A, C, an employee of the Defendant, violated the Defendant’s duty to take safety measures, as Paragraph 4-A.

B. The Defendant violated the Defendant’s duty to take safety measures, such as Paragraph 4(b)(b), on the Defendant’s non-business operation at the same time and at the same place as Paragraph 4(b).

Summary of Evidence

Omission

Application of Statutes

1. Relevant Articles of criminal facts;

(a) Defendant A: Articles 268, 30 (a) of the Criminal Act, Articles 71, 66-2, and 23(3) (a) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act (a) of the same Act, Articles 71, 67 subparag. 1, and 23(1) and (3) (a) of the Act on occupational safety and health (a violation of a duty to take safety measures)

(b) Defendant B: Articles 71, 66-2, and 23 (3) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act (the occupation of a worker's death due to a violation of a duty to take safety measures); Articles 71, 67 subparagraph 1, 23 (1), and (3) (the occupation of a violation of a duty to take safety measures) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act;

(c) Defendants C and D: Articles 71, 68 subparag. 3, and 29(3) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act (a violation of one’s duty to take safety measures on March 14, 2018); Articles 71, 67 subparag. 1, 23(1), (2), and (3) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act (a violation of one’s duty to take safety measures on March 15, 2018);

D. Defendant E: Articles 268 and 30 of the Criminal Act

1. Formal concurrence (Defendant A);

Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act

1. Selection of penalty;

Each fine for Defendant A and C, and each sentence of imprisonment without prison labor for Defendant E

1. Concurrent crimes (Defendant A, B, C, and D)

Articles 37 (former part), 38 (1) 2, and 50 of the Criminal Act

1. Detention in a workhouse (Defendant A, C);

Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act

1. Suspension of execution (Defendant E);

Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act

Reasons for sentencing

피고인 A , E의 과실이 중하고 근로자 사망이라는 중한 결과가 발생하였다 . 피고인 A 의 경우 피해근로자에게 안전대 등 기본적인 보호장구를 제대로 제공하지 아니하였고 , 안전모를 정상적으로 착용하고 있는지 점검하지도 아니하였으며 , 안전난간 등 안전시 설도 갖추지 아니하는 등 책임이 무겁다 . 피고인 C의 경우도 수급업체 근로자들이 안 전시설이 제대로 갖추어지지 않은 이동식 비계를 사용하고 있음에도 이를 제대로 점검 하지 아니한 잘못이 크다 . 다만 , 피고인들이 모두 범행을 인정하고 진지하게 반성하는 점 , 안전모 턱끈을 제대로 매지 않은 피해근로자의 과실도 이 사건 사망사고 발생의 원인이었던 것으로 보이는 점 , 피고인 A의 경우 유족과 합의한 점 , 피고인 C , 주식회 사 D의 경우 공소사실 기재 위반사항을 모두 바로잡은 점 , 그 밖에 피고인들의 나이 , 환경 , 범행 동기와 경위 , 피해자와의 관계 등 모든 양형조건을 종합하여 주문과 같이 형을 정한다 .