Injury by negligence

2. B

Attorney D (private election for the defendant B)

However, the execution of the above sentence against Defendant A shall be suspended for one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

If Defendant B fails to pay the above fine, the defendant shall be confined in a workhouse for the period calculated by converting KRW 100,000 into one day.

Defendant B shall be ordered to pay the amount equivalent to the above fine.

Defendant B is a person who is comprehensively responsible for the prevention of safety accidents related to hazardous chemicals, the management and supervision of employees at the Green Industrial Complex of the F Company in Ulsan-gun E, Ulsan-gun, and the Defendant A is in charge of the operation of G tank glass and the operation of toxic substances and unloading of the G tank, which is a vehicle transporting limited special poisonous substances, under a contract with limited special companies.

Where any person handles hazardous chemicals, he/she shall have a hazardous chemical supervisor participate in loading or unloading the hazardous chemicals into or from a vehicle, or transfer them to another hazardous chemical handling facility, and where he/she handles the hazardous substances, he/she shall transfer the hazardous substances after checking not only the maintenance of relevant equipment but also the safety in accordance with the standards for the management

Nevertheless, at around 14:30 on June 12, 2014, Defendant B, a harmful chemical substance located in the F company Onnuri, had H, a hazardous chemical supervisor, load a yellow acid to Defendant A, the driver of the yellow acid transport tank, and did not have H permanently reside until the shipment is completed, and Defendant A, alone, loaded yellow acid more excessively than the limited volume while he loaded it on the said vehicle.

Thus, Defendant B had Defendant A move to a safe hazardous chemical treatment plant and let Defendant A process an excessive sulfur safely, and had Defendant B manage and supervise the F company Onnuri Industrial Complex to prevent transfer of sulfur acid to another tank lorri vehicle at his discretion, but Defendant A left the vehicle of the victim I (year 42) for carrying it into the victim I (year 42) tank.

Defendant A transferred yellow acid, which was overfluord in his G tank vehicles to the victim’s J tank lorri vehicle at the same time and at the same place, and the connection lorries to the lower part of the tank lorri, confirmed the safety of the relevant equipment, such as connections lorries, etc., and did not transfer poisonous substances after confirming the safety of the equipment during the process of transporting yellow acid, such as using a refluor fixed device, etc. on the upper part of the tank lorri vehicle, while the lor connected to the Yellow lorri vehicle to the end of the tank lorri vehicle, and was transferred to the lower part of the tank lorri vehicle, and the yellow acid covered the part of the victim.

As a result, the Defendants did not observe the standards for handling hazardous chemicals, and at the same time, the Defendants suffered injuries to the victims of the above joint occupational negligence, such as video-scamtains and the construction of a video-scamtains and scambing

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant A’s legal statement

1. Defendant B’s partial statement

1. Statement of each police statement made to K and H;

1. A medical certificate;

Application of Statutes

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

Defendant A: Article 60 Subparag. 4 of the former Toxic Chemicals Control Act (Amended by Act No. 11998, Aug. 6, 2013; hereinafter the same shall apply), Article 24 Subparag. 5 (Violation of Hazardous Chemicals Control Standards) of the same Act, Articles 268 and 30 (Bodily Injury resulting from Occupational Negligence) of the Criminal Act

Defendant B: Article 60 subparagraph 4 of the former Toxic Chemicals Control Act, Article 24 subparagraph 4 of the same Article (Violation of the Toxic Chemicals Control Act), Articles 268 and 30 of the Criminal Act (the fact of occupational injury)

1. Commercial competition;

Defendants: Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act

1. Selection of punishment;

Defendant A shall be sentenced to imprisonment without prison labor, and to Defendant B shall be sentenced to a fine, respectively (Consideration, degree and degree of injury, details of negligence of the Defendants, etc.)

1. Suspension of execution;

Defendant A: Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (Article 62(1)(Article 62(1)); and

1. Detention in a workhouse;

Defendant B: Article 70(1) of the Criminal Act

1. Order of provisional payment;

Defendant B: Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

Judgment on Defendant B and Defense Counsel’s argument

Defendant B and his defense counsel asserted to the effect that there was no negligence in the crime of injury caused by occupational negligence. However, according to macroscopic evidence, even though Defendant A did not have a poisonous substance manager of the FF company since he was in the actual state from the time he was in the YY and Defendant A told Defendant A to move over the damaged vehicle to the side of the FF company, the person in charge did not actively refrain from doing so. In this regard, Defendant B was judged to have failed to perform his duty of care to prevent the injury accident as a field manager. Accordingly, the above assertion is rejected.