[산업안전보건법위반·업무상과실치사·업무상과실치상][공2005.10.15.(236),1653]
The case affirming the judgment of the court below that the construction company cannot ask the field agent of the construction company for a crime of occupational injury or death in case of an accident that occurred during the construction company's construction work by giving a contract to the specialized company for the installation of another workshop during construction work.
The case affirming the judgment of the court below that the construction company cannot ask the field agent of the construction company for a crime of occupational injury or death in case of an accident that occurred during the construction company's construction work by giving a contract to a specialized company for the installation of another workshop during the construction work.
Article 268 of the Criminal Act
Defendant 1 and one other
Prosecutor
Law Firm Law Firm, Attorneys Doh-il et al.
Suwon District Court Decision 2004No4615 Decided April 21, 2005
All appeals are dismissed.
1. The court below acknowledged facts based on its adopted evidence, and acknowledged facts as stated in its decision. In full view of the facts, and all persons necessary for the establishment, operation, and dissolution of the company of this case were employed by the non-indicted under his own responsibility without the involvement of the defendant 2 Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the "defendant company"), and the installation work of the company of the company requires a high level of advanced labor. The employees of the defendant company do not participate in the specific installation work process due to lack of experience or expertise, it is reasonable to view the non-indicted as being awarded a contract for the part of the work process to be conducted using the company of the construction work using the equipment owned or managed by the non-indicted's own responsibility, and therefore, it is not deemed that the non-indicted was a substantial command and supervision authority to control the installation work of the company of this case, and therefore, it cannot be said that the defendant 1 violated the above direction and supervision duty imposed on the defendant 1, and therefore, it cannot be viewed as violating the rules of evidence and the records.
2. The court below affirmed the judgment of the court of first instance that acquitted the Defendants of the violation of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of the charges on the ground that, after compiling the evidence, it cannot be deemed that Defendant 1 did not take measures under the Occupational Safety and Health Act as necessary to prevent occurrence of disasters in the event that part of the business that Defendant 1 performed in the same place is contracted by a contract, and that the non-indicted is deemed to have been awarded a contract from the Defendant company, so long as the non-indicted cannot demand the Defendants to fulfill his duty of care as a lessee of equipment under the Occupational Safety and Health Act, the non-indicted cannot require the Defendants to perform his duty of care as a lessee of equipment under the Occupational Safety and Health Act. In light of the records, the court
3. Therefore, all appeals are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.
Justices Jack-dam (Presiding Justice)