업무상과실치상
The judgment below
Of them, the part on Defendant B shall be reversed.
Defendant
B. Defendant A’s appeal is dismissed.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The sentence imposed by Defendant A (one year of suspended execution in June) by the lower court is too unreasonable.
B. Defendant B (1) The Defendant was not a position to control and supervise A, and the Defendant did not instruct A to re-loading and unloading.
However, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty as to the facts charged of this case is erroneous by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
2) The sentence sentenced by the lower court (one year of suspended sentence in April) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. Determination as to Defendant B’s assertion of mistake of facts refers to a case where: (a) occupational negligence referred to in the crime of occupational and practical thought is insufficient solely with the breach of a general and abstract duty related to duties; and (b) is not mistakenly performed despite a specific duty of care that should be performed in connection with such duties (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Do7030, May 28, 2009, etc.). Meanwhile, if the head of the site office, who is the executive director of the construction company, was in exclusive charge of construction supervision at the site; and (b) the president did not have such supervision, the president has a specific and direct duty of care to devise detailed safety measures for each individual work, on the ground that the company’s employees or employees who did not directly direct command and supervise the construction work, or employees who did not engage in such supervision.
It is difficult to do so (see Supreme Court Decision 89Do1618, Nov. 24, 1989, etc.). 2) The fact that the defendant, as the head of the production team of E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “E”), has provided for safety education to the drivers for whom the defendant had been engaged as the director of the production team.
3) However, according to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court and the lower court, the following circumstances, i.e., safety and health organization E, are also superior to the safety and health organization.