(b) Violation of Occupational Safety and Health Act;

Residence

Reference domicile

2.(a) B, in 1976, South and North Korea, and in the Company.

Residence

Reference domicile

2.3

Location

A Representative Director

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

To order the above defendant to provide community service for 120 hours.

2. Defendant B shall be punished by imprisonment without prison labor for one year;

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

To order the above defendant to provide community service for 120 hours.

3. Defendant C shall be punished by a fine of KRW 10 million.

To order the above defendant to pay the amount equivalent to the above fine.

Defendant C is a corporation established for the purpose of manufacturing vessel parts, etc. in Ulsan-gun D, Ulsan-gun, and Defendant A is the representative director of the above corporation C, who is in charge of overall management of affairs concerning harmful and dangerous measures against employees belonging to the corporation. Defendant B is a person in charge of safety management of employees belonging to the above corporation C.

1. Violation of the Occupational Negligence Act, the death of Defendant A, and the violation of the Occupational Disease Act due to the death of Defendant A’s workers

On February 26, 2020, the Defendants ordered the removal of the gas from AS (aS (a stamping of an automatic device) installed in the right-hand telegram of the entrance of the factory of the above C Co., Ltd., to set up the house, and the employees of C, and the victims E (Nam, 53 years old) was engaged in the removal of the gas from the electric telegram.

In such cases, Defendant A and Defendant B, a business owner, had a duty of care to take necessary measures to prevent industrial accidents caused by electricity, heat, or other energy in the course of performing work.

Nevertheless, the Defendants did not provide the victim with the protective equipment at a special high voltage charging station. ② At a high voltage charging station, the Defendants did not provide the victim with the protective equipment that is in danger of shock, ② at a high voltage charging station, the electric fire extinguishing and Ake, and did not wear a work uniform with the retardant performance; ③ there is no certificate of qualification related to electricity; ③ there is no education related to electricity; and the unqualified victim, who did not receive the training, did not provide the victim with a special high voltage facility close to the water charging station. ④ The Defendants did not stop the relevant transition while having the victim work in the vicinity of the water charging station; ⑤ The Defendants did not install a smoke protective equipment suitable for the voltage, or have the victim use a shock machine and equipment, and did not take the work in accordance with the work plan to prevent any access to the water supply system within 300cc.

On February 16, 2020, the Defendants did not take measures to prevent the risks of the workplace, and the victims were engaged in the work to remove the gased on the 6m high-speed electric poles around the entrance of the above C Factory Co., Ltd. at around February 16, 2020, when the 22,90V high-tension electric wires were contacted, and accordingly, the Defendants caused the victims to die by electric shock or electric image.

Accordingly, the Defendants conspired and breached the duty of care as above. At the same time, Defendant A violated the above duty of care under the Occupational Safety and Health Act, thereby causing the death of the victim.

2. Violation of the Occupational Safety and Health Act due to Defendant A’s failure to take safety measures

(a) The business owner shall take measures necessary to prevent industrial accidents that may occur in the course of performing work at a place, etc. where workers might fall down;

Nevertheless, around February 26, 2020, the Defendant did not require E, an employee of the Defendant, to wear safety caps at a height of 6 meters above the ground, while allowing E, an employee of the Defendant, to perform the work of removing the raft above the 6 meters above the ground. However, the Defendant did not install a work log.

Accordingly, the defendant did not fulfill his duty to take safety and health measures under the Occupational Safety and Health Act.

(b) In the case of high voltage line work and active work that require considerable knowledge or skill as harmful or dangerous work, a business owner shall not have an electrical engineer under the National Technical Qualifications Act, a railroad signal technician, and an electrical railway technician or higher, a graduate from the department of electricity at a high school under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, or a person holding an equivalent or higher academic background, a person who has completed workplace skill development training in the relevant field under the Act on the Development of Workers’ Vocational Skills, or a worker other than those permitted to perform the relevant work in accordance with relevant Acts and subordinate statutes;

Nevertheless, on February 26, 2020, the Defendant, in front of the above C Factory, had an employee E, who did not have the certificate of electricity related and did not receive the education and training related to electricity as prescribed by the Act, and had an employee E, who did not receive the education and training related to electricity, perform the work of removing the special high voltage facility upper part of the high voltage facility.

Accordingly, the defendant, as a dangerous work, had a worker who is not qualified in relation to high pressure vessels with considerable knowledge or training.

3. Defendant C

On February 26, 2020, the defendant, a representative of the defendant company, failed to take necessary safety measures as stated in paragraph (1) with respect to the business of the defendant company, thereby causing the death of workers. The defendant did not take necessary safety measures like facts constituting the crime described in paragraph (2).

Summary of Evidence

(Omission)

Application of Statutes

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

(a) Defendant A: Articles 173, 167(1), and 38(1) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act (limited to cases where an employee dies due to his/her failure to take safety measures), Articles 173, 168 subparag. 1, and 38(3) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act (limited to cases where an employee dies due to his/her failure to take safety measures), Articles 173, 169 subparag. 1, and 140(1) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act (limited to cases of violation of restrictions, etc. on his/her employment by qualifications, etc.), Articles 268 and 30 of the Criminal Act;

B. Defendant B: Articles 268 and 30 of the Criminal Act

(c) Defendant C: Articles 173, 167(1), and 38(1) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act (limited to cases where workers died due to the failure to take the pre-measures), Articles 173, 168 subparag. 1, and 38(3) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act (limited to cases where workers died due to the failure to take the pre-measures), Articles 173, 169 subparag. 1, and 140(1) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act (limited to cases where restrictions on their employment by qualifications, etc. are violated);

1. Commercial competition;

Defendant A: Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act

1. Selection of punishment;

Imprisonment with prison labor and imprisonment without prison labor for Defendant A

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

Defendant A and C: the former part of Article 37, Articles 38(1)2 and 50 of the Criminal Act

1. Suspension of execution;

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

1. Social service order;

Defendant A and B: Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act

1. Order of provisional payment;

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

Reasons for sentencing

The Defendants did not take a formal safety measure such as blocking electricity or providing a studal equipment while ordering the victim to engage in the dangerous work, thereby resulting in the death of the victimized workers and resulting in irreparable damage that the bereaved family members lose their family.

Each sentence shall be determined as ordered by the accused, comprehensively taking into account all the factors of sentencing, including the fact that the Defendants had not been punished for the same kind of criminal offense before the instant case, the fact that the bereaved family members want to take the action, the fact that the bereaved family members want to take the action, the fact that responsibilities are recognized and divided, and the Defendants’ occupation, age, and environment.