[업무상과실치상][공1990.1.15(864),177]
The case holding that there is no duty to take detailed safety measures to the president of the construction company with respect to accidents that occurred at a construction site.
If the head of the site office, who is the executive director of the construction company, was in exclusive charge of the construction supervision at the site, and the president did not direct and supervise the construction work, the president has a specific and direct duty of care to devise detailed safety measures for each individual work in preparation for this, on the ground that the employees of the construction company who did not directly command and supervise the construction work, or labor workers who did not have been employed, have been able to avoid an accident in violation of the safety rules in the construction work.
Article 268 of the Criminal Act
Supreme Court Decision 88Do1683 Decided January 31, 1989
Defendant 1 and two others
Defendants
Suwon District Court Decision 87No1043 delivered on July 6, 1989
The part of the lower judgment against Defendant 2 is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Suwon District Court Panel Division.
Defendant 1 and 3’s appeals are dismissed.
1. Judgment on the appeal by Defendant 1 and Defendant 3
Examining the evidence stated in the judgment of the first instance court by comparing it with the records, the first instance court’s explanation of the grounds for finding the Defendants guilty of all the charges against the Defendants can be acceptable, and its sentencing cannot be deemed unreasonable.
Therefore, the decision of the court below is just to dismiss the appeal by the defendant, etc. and there is no violation of the rules of evidence. The appeal cannot be accepted.
2. Judgment on Defendant 2’s appeal
The facts charged against Defendant 2 are that Defendant 1 and 3 neglected to exercise an occupational duty of care to thoroughly supervise Defendant 1 and 3 before transporting the board, and Defendant 1 and 3 neglected to transport the board in the middle floor to the first floor, and caused injury to Defendant 1 and 3 due to negligence when Defendant 1 and the right to create the victim was infringed on the right to create the first floor for 16 days prior to the fact that the right to create the victim was reached. As such, Defendant is only the president of the company, the head of the field director of the company, the director of the company, and the head of the field director was in exclusive charge before the commencement of work, and Defendant 1 and 3 failed to comply with the duty of care to transport the board prior to the commencement of work, and thus, Defendant 1 and 3 did not have any specific evidence to prove that Defendant 1 and 3 did not have any other duty of care to prevent any injury on the part of Defendant 1 and 1 and it was difficult to find that there was any injury on the part of Defendant 8’s testimony at the site.
The appeal pointed out this point is justified.
Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below as to Defendant 2 is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Suwon District Court Panel Division, and the appeal by Defendant 1 and 3 is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.
Justices Kim Yong-sung (Presiding Justice)