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

The Defendant is a business operator who enters the C digging searcher owned by the Defendant into “B” and engages in equipment leasing business, removal, waste disposal business, etc.

Since around August 25, 2018, the Defendant employed the victim E (year 53) and took overall charge of the safety management at the construction site while carrying out housing demolition and waste disposal works using construction machinery, such as the above excavation equipment, from around August 25, 2018, the Defendant has a duty of care to induce workers to operate construction machinery in accordance with the name of the inducer in case of having access to the construction machinery in contact with the vehicle system. As such, the Defendant has a duty of care to induce workers to have access to the construction machinery in accordance with the guidelines of the inducer.

In addition, the Defendant instructed the victim not to have access to the construction machinery surrounding the construction machinery, such as softeners, etc., and accordingly, the victim worked in the nearest location of the scoper. Accordingly, prior to the victim’s commencement of work, the Defendant had a duty of care to provide safety education, such as informing the victim of the fact that there is a way to send signals without close distance, such as leaving the scopher to the scoper when the scoper comes to the scoper, etc.

Furthermore, the Defendant had a duty of care to drive in a situation where people are not close to others by examining well the front left left of the vehicle at the time of driving, as the Defendant directly operated the digging router at the above construction site.

Nevertheless, the Defendant around August 29, 2018 around 09:43.