B. Violation of the Occupational Safety and Health Act

2. B.C.

Attorney P, Q

Defendant A shall be punished by a fine of KRW 10,000,000 and by a fine of KRW 7,000,000.

Where a defendant A fails to pay the above fine, the above defendant shall be confined in a workhouse for the period of returning KRW 100,000 to one day.

The sentence of the lower court (Defendant A: Imprisonment with prison labor for six months, suspended execution for one year, and fine for negligence for Defendant B: KRW 10 million) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

The young young 27 years of age was lost due to the instant accident. This is a serious damage that could not be observed.

However, the Defendants deposited a considerable amount of money for the bereaved family members of the victim in the lower court, and agreed in the trial, and the victim’s bereaved family members want to take the measures. The Defendants concluded an entrustment contract with the Korea Industrial Safety Association and the safety management business, and concluded regular safety inspection and supplemented the safety management system in accordance with the recommendations, etc. In order to prevent safety accidents. Defendant A is the first offender who has no criminal power.

In full view of the above circumstances and other sentencing conditions as seen above, including Defendant A’s age, character and conduct, environment, degree of negligence of the Defendants expressed in the instant crime, and circumstances after the commission of the crime, etc., the sentence imposed by the lower court to the Defendants is too unreasonable.

The Defendants’ assertion of unreasonable sentencing is justified.

3. Conclusion

Since the defendants' appeal is well-grounded, the judgment of the court below is reversed pursuant to Article 364(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the following judgment is rendered through pleading.

(C) Reasons for the judgment in writing)

Criminal facts and summary of evidence

The summary of facts constituting an offense and evidence recognized by this court is identical to the corresponding column of the reasoning of the judgment below, and thus, it is cited in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Application of Statutes

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

(a) Defendant A: Articles 66-2 and 23(1)2 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act, Articles 232, 311, and 325(2) of the Rules on the Standards for Occupational Safety and Health (Death of Workers in Violation of Safety Measures) and Article 268 of the Criminal Act

(b) Defendant B stock company: The main sentence of Article 71 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act, Articles 66-2 and 23 (1) 2 of the same Act, Articles 232, 31, and 325 (2) of the Rules on Occupational Safety and Health;

1. Commercial competition;

Defendant A: Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act (Punishments imposed on a violation of the Occupational Safety and Health Act with heavier punishment)

1. Selection of punishment;

Selection of fine against Defendant A

1. Detention in a workhouse;

Defendant A: Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act

Reasons for sentencing

The above "2. Judgment" sets forth a sentence as ordered in consideration of the fin situation.

Judges, Senior Superintendent-General

Judges Park Jong-woo