logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 울산지방법원 2014.08.29 2014고단1682
업무상과실치사등
Text

Defendants shall be punished by a fine of KRW 7,000,000.

Defendant

A or B fails to pay each of the above fines.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

Defendant

A As the representative director of C, a person in charge of safety and health affairs of employees under his control, and Defendant B, as the field director of C, a person in charge of safety and health affairs at the work site, and Defendant C is a corporation established for the purpose of steel product construction business.

1. On October 13, 2013, at around 08:05, the victim D (the age of 60) who is an employee of Defendant A and Defendant B’s company C, entered the lower part of the cream (a 7m x 8.2m in length, 4.7m in weight) that was placed on the support stand at approximately one meter at the c shop in the modern car 3 plant located in Ulsan-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Ulsan-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City (the age of 60) around October 13, 2013.

As above, in the event of cutting work at the lower part of a weight, it was predicted that there was a risk that the cut cream may cause the accidents of the workman's cream or death due to the loss of the center and the fall from the support stand.

Therefore, Defendant A, the representative director of Defendant C, in the course of handling heavy objects, has a duty of care to conduct a prior investigation into the relevant work, the relevant work site’s topography, ground level, and ground level, etc. in order to prevent the danger of workers, and record and preserve the results of the investigation, to prepare a work plan including safety measures, etc. to prevent the rapid arrival and collapse risk, in consideration of the results of the investigation, and to conduct work according to the plan; to designate a work commander and to direct work in accordance with the work plan; and Defendant B, the head of the site office of the C, a stock company, had a duty of care to supervise Defendant B, who is the head of the job site office of the C, in order to prevent the decline from falling into the floor.

Nevertheless, the Defendants violated the above duty of care.

arrow