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

The Defendant, as the business owner of the manufacturer of household-resistant materials in the vehicle B in the following cities, is a person in charge of safety and health management.

At this point, a facility that enables workers to temporarily heated the original body of the motor vehicle and plastic shooting and temporarily connected with the facility “o-emitting” and the “laring presses,” which folds and tightly folds the instant private withdrawns, to be used in the press system by inserting and pressing the private withdrawns from the device in the upper and lower security system. In light of the risk that other obstacles might face when the above presses stand down, the business owner had a duty of care to prevent the workers from shocking their workers beyond the press system or from taking other machines around the press system.

Nevertheless, on September 20, 2018, at around 09:54, the Defendant neglected to take the above safety measures and failed to take such safety measures. On September 20, 2018, at around 09:54, the construction cost of the original body being built from the press line to the press line, and the said press system (weight 500km) has ceased to be centered on the press line. From among the press facility and the gate, the victim D (W, 43 years old) who is an employee of the above company, who was working in the letter at the press line, caused the death by the external shock on the same day with the head at around 10:20 on the same day.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Examination protocol of the accused by prosecution;

1. Each police statement of the E, F, G, and H;

1. On-site photographs and a written result of autopsy;

1. Report on internal investigation (Attachment of photographs, such as the scene of the accident and presses);

1. A written opinion on the disaster investigation;