산업안전보건법위반
Defendants publish the summary of the judgment of innocence.
1. Pursuant to Article 23(1) of the Industrial Safety and Health Act, which is a legal provision applicable to the facts charged, Defendant A appropriately amends the facts charged. Defendant A is an employee of the International Association for the Residents of Apartment Houses and the B Co., Ltd. who entered into a contract for the entrustment management of I Apartment Houses; Defendant A is a general manager in charge of safety management for B Co., Ltd; Defendant B is a corporation established for the purpose of building and housing management business.
A. Around March 22, 2016, Defendant A had the victim J(68)J (S) affiliated with I apartment security guards in the vicinity of Seodaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government 106, Seodaemun-gu, Seoul Metropolitan Government I apartment house 106, I apartment security guards in the vicinity of the 106-dong area, work for cutting a variety of houses at approximately 3.6 meters away from the height of 3.6 meters away from a mobile bridge.
Where any worker is likely to cause danger to his/her workers when he/she works in a machine, facility, ship block, etc., the relevant business owner shall install a work board or wear a safety belt by means of assembling the vision, etc.
Nevertheless, the Defendant: (a) caused the victim to fall down on the ground below 3.6 meters on the ground by having the victim work without installing a work board at the work site; and (b) caused the victim’s death from the Central Medical Center located in Jung-gu Seoul Central Medical Center, Jung-gu, Seoul, to have his/her respiratory part with blood plehy, around April 6, 2016.
B. Defendant B, at the above date and place, did not take necessary measures to prevent the risk of workers as above in relation to the Defendant’s business.
2. The main point of the Defendants’ assertion is that the victim’s work site is not a place where it is necessary to install a work tag, such as a rain gauge, and Defendant A had the victim wear a safety cap and a safety belt, but the victim neglected to wear.
Even if Defendant A violated the Industrial Safety and Health Act.