B. Violation of the Occupational Safety and Health Act

2. A. B

3.2.(b) C

Comprehensively taking account of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, although it can be sufficiently recognized that there was occupational negligence and proximate causal relation between the negligence and the accident in this case, the court below acquitted all of the facts charged in this case. The court below erred in misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles (the prosecutor added the facts charged against Defendant B as follows, 'the violation of the Occupational Safety and Health Act', 'the violation of Articles 66-2 and 23(1) of the Industrial Safety and Health Act' to add 'the violation of the name of the crime' to the applicable provisions of the Act, and 'the modification of

2. Determination

A. Summary of this part of the facts charged

1) Defendant A and Defendant B

Defendant A, as a general manager of the heat plant construction in C, is the relevant safety and health management supervisor. Defendant B is the supervisor for trial operation as the team leader. The business owner shall not engage in dangerous work using fire or dangerous work that may generate flames unless he/she takes measures to prevent explosion or fire. The Defendants, around 09:0 on July 1, 2014, performed the work of using oxygen stored in the oxygen for the trial operation of the three-year nuclear plant at the same time, at around 10:10 on the same day with low pressure of oxygen pipes, put the victims into the scene to reduce the pressure of the oxygen pipes to increase pressure by putting them into the scene for the work of removing dangerous substances, such as a fire pressure or explosion, and at the same time, the Defendants were not required to perform the work of extinguishing dangerous substances, such as 1,000 equipment at the same time during the process of trial operation and safety management, and were not required to perform the work of extinguishing dangerous substances, such as extinguishing dangerous substances and extinguishing dangerous substances.

2) Defendant C

The defendant, who is an employee, did not take measures to prevent explosion or fire with respect to the defendant's business, and had the victim I and H, who is an employee of the defendant, work in a dangerous manner to generate flames, and caused the death.

B. The judgment of the court below

In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the court below comprehensively taking into account the adopted evidence, i.e., ① the pressure valve in which the accident occurred was no problem above the test report, ② Qudo construction supervision was not found, ③ the responsibility for construction of the entire oxygen supply facilities, including the pressure valve, is in the stock company F, it is difficult to deem the Defendants to be the negligence of the Defendants. ① The state and the water appraisal protocol do not contain a sudden operation of the valves due to the accident, ② the victims were not aware that the victims were not aware of the rapid operation of the valves at the time of the accident, ② the victims were investigating the scene at the time of the accident and making an investigation statement, ③ the victims stated that the victim was able to operate the valves 20 minutes prior to the accident, ④ the victims were stated as the main safety and health factors, ④ the victims were unable to recognize that there was a sudden causal causal causal relation between the victims and the water supply system at the time, and even if the victims were not able to be found to have operated the valves, it is difficult to find the Defendants not guilty.

C. Judgment of the court below

The facts charged in a criminal trial must be proved by the prosecutor, and the judge should be convicted with evidence having probative value, which leads to the conviction that the facts charged are true beyond a reasonable doubt. Thus, if there is no such evidence, even if there is doubt as to the defendant's guilt, it shall be determined with the benefit of the defendant (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Do767, Apr. 15, 2005).

In light of the above legal principles and records, we affirm the fact-finding and judgment of the court below as just and there is no error of law such as misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles as alleged by the prosecutor in the judgment below. Thus, the prosecutor's above assertion

3. Conclusion

Therefore, since the prosecutor's appeal is without merit, it is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.

For judges' awards:

Judge fixed-term