logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 성남지원 2021.02.04 2020고단2405
산업안전보건법위반등
Text

Defendant

A Imprisonment for eight months, Defendant B for eight months without prison labor, and Defendant C for a fine of ten thousand won,00,000 won.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

Defendant

A Co., Ltd. is a corporation established in Gwangju City for the purpose of implementing a state color construction business such as street in Gwangju City, and Defendant A is the representative of the above company who is in charge of general management of safety and health, and Defendant B is the driver of the vehicle E in charge of filing a complaint.

1. On December 19, 2019, Defendant A and Defendants: (a) around 15:38, 201, on the site of “G color construction project” located in F in Seongbuk-gu, Sungnam-si; (b) on the vehicle working unit for accusation, Defendant A and the Defendants were carrying the victim H(52 taxes) and other workers; and (c) on the height of approximately six meters above the ground, were engaged in the painting of main iron lamps.

The above work is conducted at a height of about 6 meters on the ground, which is likely to fall, and in such a case, Defendant A, who is engaged in safety management, had a duty of care to provide safety caps and safety belts to workers in order to prevent the falling risk of workers, and to prevent safety accidents, such as the fall of workers, etc., by installing a safety rail at the accusation work unit. Defendant B, the driver of the accusation work vehicle, had a duty of care to ensure the safety of workers, as well as to prevent safety accidents, such as the fall of workers, etc.

Nevertheless, Defendant A had a person employed in the accusation work be on board a vehicle that is not equipped with a safety rail at the front of the accusation work unit without wearing a safety mother and safety stand, and Defendant B did not suspend the work despite having confirmed the above situation, but did not properly confirm the cost of the accusation work vehicle, which was caused by the continuous operation of the vehicle, in spite of the fact that the cost of the operation of the complaint work vehicle was caused by a variety of roadsides, which was caused by the continuous operation of the vehicle, and the injured person on the part of the work unit fell on the ground and fell on the ground.

arrow