2018 Highest 3585 Occupationalization

1. Kim Yong-mar, 72 years old, South, and artificial limbs engineer;

Busan

2. Subsidies to Kim, 69 years old, south, and miscellaneous engineers; and

Busan

3. Minimum Chapter, 89 years old, south, or building business.

Residential tent City

4. The former team leader, 79 years old, male, and members of the company; and

Busan

A satellite station (prosecution), Park Jin-Jin (Public trial)

1. The precedent of the law firm (for the purpose of defendant Kim Yong-ran);

2. Attorney Lee Jong-soo (Attorney Kim Jong-chul);

3. Law Firm Secretary (for the minimum of the defendant);

4. The name of the law firm (for the whole team leader of the defendant);

October 23, 2020

1. The defendant Kim Yong shall be punished by imprisonment without prison labor for eight months;

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.2. Defendant Kim Jong-sung shall be punished by imprisonment without prison labor for six months.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive. 3. The minimum head of the defendant shall be punished by imprisonment without prison labor for eight months.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended with respect to the minimum director of the defendant for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive;

Provided, That the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Criminal facts

The head of the Defendant’s minimum site is the site commander who directly inspects safety management affairs, such as direction and supervision of employees at the construction site at the construction site and the site manager who directly inspects the safety rules in preparation for accidents such as fire at the time of fire work at the construction site. Defendant Kim Yong-ro is the site manager who directly inspects the safety management affairs of the aforementioned construction site to ensure that employees of the construction site at the construction site are in compliance with the safety rules. Defendant Kim Yong-ro is the site manager who moves flame retardant and fire extinguishers such as asbestos retardants for the prevention of fire that might occur in the process of using Defendant Kim Yong-ro to March 10, 2018, and who is in charge of fire prevention and supervision on the front part of the building, and the head of the electric team leader at the construction site who is in charge of fire safety supervision and supervision on the front part of the building, in preparation for fire prevention and fire-fighting in preparation for fire-fighting accidents at the construction site.

On February 9, 2018, Defendant Kim Yong-mor and Defendant Kim Jong-moron were to conduct a melting work for the installation of a support stand at the edge of the said construction site around 10:55, and 14 seen above. The string floor near the adjoining place was likely to cause fire. The strings, which are combustible materials having a high risk of fire, were well generated in the gap between the string and the steel disaster, were tights, and there were several separate lumbers under the above string floor and the above string. In order to prevent fire, Defendant Kim-mor and Defendant Kim-mort should be kept in the work zone at the front of the string work and the fire extinguishing water, and if there were no combustible materials found in the stringing work zone, it is necessary to ensure that there were no more fire-retardant materials to be moved within the string distance from exposure to the surrounding place, and it is necessary to ensure that there were no more fire-retardant in the front or outside the work zone.

Defendant’s minimum Chapter confirms that there was a qualification certificate related to contact, and provides safety education to Defendant Kim Yong and Defendant Kim Jong to ensure that no fire does not occur before commencing the contact work. On the other hand, it is necessary to confirm whether the flame retardant sets, such as asbestos sprinks, are sufficiently covered so as not to move to a exposed father with high risk of sprinking fire, and there was a duty of care to additionally secure and cover the flame retardant sets, such as asbestos sprinks.

Upon receipt of a report from the head of the Defendant’s team on the progress of construction accompanied by fire, such as electricity, etc., the head of the Defendant’s electric team leader shall directly educate workers, including the head of the site headquarters, at the work site in advance, and shall visit the site prior to or during the work site to manage and supervise whether workers properly observe the safety rules in accordance with the work permit. In particular, the Defendant’s minimum head and the head of the Defendant’s electric team have a duty of care to take necessary safety measures, such as placing fire monitors at the adjoining work site, if it is difficult to check at the work site or if a fire, such as a shot fire

Nevertheless, the lower court did not confirm that Defendant 1 was an unqualified owner related to the above 00th floor of the building, and did not provide safety education to them prior to their adjoining construction. They did not keep sufficient number of fire extinguishing water in order to prevent fire, and did not assign fire monitors to the near the 0th floor of the building, and instead did not provide safety regulations and work to the employees even after receiving a report from the lower head of the 6th day before their use of the building. Defendant 1 was not at the 0th floor of the above 10th floor of the building, and Defendant 1 was at the 0th floor of the above 0th floor of the building, and was at the 0th floor of the above 10th floor of the building, and was at the 0th floor of the building, and the 1st floor of the above 10th floor of the building, and was at the 0th floor of the building, there was no risk of scatteringing the above 1st floor of the building, and Defendant 2 was at the front floor of the building.

As a result, the Defendants jointly destroyed a building or an object owned by another person by negligence on duty.

Summary of Evidence

(Omission)

Application of Statutes

1. Article relevant to the facts constituting an offense and the selection of punishment;

Defendants: Articles 171, 170(1), and 30 of the Criminal Act; Selection of imprisonment without prison labor

1. Suspension of execution;

○ Defendants: Determination as to the allegations by Defendant Kim Yong-dae, Kim Jong-sung, the former team leader, and their defense counsel under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act

1. Summary of the assertion

A. Even though the construction site of this case was considerably exposed to the risk of fire, the construction company ordered the Defendant to marbling work on the part of the construction company, and the asbestos marbs that the Defendant could have been able to prepare for marb in its own means was not put in Chapter 2. In such a situation, the Defendant used asbestos mar and mard work, when a fire occurred, and started to mard immediately using a fire extinguisher, and it is difficult to view that the Defendant had a legal obligation to prepare for marbling the fire. Therefore, it cannot be viewed that the Defendant was negligent in business on the part

B. Defendant Kim Jong-chul

The Defendant did not correspond to the Defendant Kim Yong-dae, and at the time of the occurrence of the instant fire, the Defendant was engaged in sand trading work after the contact, and did not engage in the contact work. Therefore, the Defendant cannot be deemed to have a duty to prevent fire, and the Defendant did not jointly engage in the contact work with Kim Yong-dae at the time of the fire, and thus, the Defendant cannot be deemed to be a joint principal offender of the crime of occupational practicalization together with Kim Yong-dae.

① The duties of the Defendant, as the head of the general affairs team of the Nult Points, are limited to a purchaser visiting the pertinent Dolet, or an occupant company’s convenience to handle civil petitions and handling civil petitions. Even according to the statutes or the terms and conditions of the contract concluded between the Kult E and E services, the owner of the building in Ulsan store, cannot be recognized as the obligation of facility management and fire prevention as stated on the facts constituting the Defendant’s judgment. The subject in charge of such facility management and fire prevention can be deemed to be Mproers and his affiliated Kim Jong-si, who entered into a contract on the management of Erithte and Facilities. Therefore, even if the Defendant had the above duty of care, the instant fire cannot be deemed to have a direct and specific duty of care to prevent the occurrence of the instant fire. ② Even if the Defendant had the above duty of care, the instant fire was caused by the negligence on the part of the Defendant Kim Yong-sung, Kim-Support’s work, and the Defendant did not hear in advance from the head of the Defendant’s workplace.

2. Determination

A. As to Defendant Kim Yong-dae and Kim Jong-sung

In light of the following circumstances, the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court of this case, the occurrence of the fire in this case was caused by the scattering of a fire that occurred in the course of the contact with the defendant Kim Yong, and the defendant Kim Yong was engaged in the contact work up to the day immediately before the occurrence of the fire. It is sufficiently recognized that the fire was contributed to the occurrence of the fire by neglecting the fire prevention duty at the time. Accordingly, the defendants' violation of the duty of care and the occurrence of the fire in this case was recognized to establish the liability for the crime of occupational negligence, and therefore, the above defendants and their defense counsel's assertion cannot be accepted.

① In full view of the contents of the country and water appraisal report on the cause of the instant fire, and the statements from workers, such as ○○, etc., who worked at the construction site of the instant case at the time, the fire was generated in a large quantity while the fire was being melting to the main body installed at the right edge of the rail, which connects the support unit of 14 in the shape “A” to the main body of the steel disaster installed at the right edge of the Defendant Kim Yong-sik, and it was apparent that the fire was caused by the gap between the string place and the steel disaster, and it was obvious that the fire was moved to the string floor on the string floor, and it did not dispute the above Defendants (According to the Defendant Kim Kim- assistant's prosecutorial examination statement at the time of the examination of the suspect's office, the above straw was exposed as it was not completely cut, and it constitutes inflammable substances).

(2) According to the technological guidelines for fire prevention published by the Korea Occupational Safety and Health Agency. ① The size of fugitives generated from adjoining Dos is 0.3 to 3mm, and the quantity and size of incombustibles may vary depending on the pressure of an oxygen at the time of using them, cutting speed and direction. Fire may be at least 3 meters and 12 meters at the time of using it, depending on the height of melting work, iron plates thickness, custom, etc. (the maximum degree of fugitives observed during the work site at the time of using the work site at the time of using it was equal to 1 meter from the surface of the work site at the time of using it; ② The size of fugitives generated from fugitives can be easily removed from the surface of the fire in the area where the fire can be removed to the area where the fire can be removed to the area where the fire can be removed to the area where the fire can be removed to the area where the fire can be removed to the area where the fire can be removed to the area where the fire can be removed to the area where the fire can be removed.

③ However, Defendant Kim Yong-ex stated to the effect that it was impossible to see that the safety measures taken by the Defendants at the time of their use in accordance with the above guidelines of the Korea Occupational Safety and Health Agency at the time of the investigation and the examination of the suspect and the examination of the suspect at the time of their use cannot prevent all scatterings that were scattered in length, length, one meter wide, and that it was not separately installed at the scene of the use. Defendant Kim Yong-ex stated to the effect that, although it was engaged in a long-term work, it was not possible to view that the safety measures taken by the Defendants at the time of their use did not reach the degree of the performance of duty of care to prevent a fire caused by scattering, it was not proper to view that the safety measures taken by the Defendants at the time of their use did not reach the degree of the performance of duty of care to prevent a fire caused by scattering, and that it did not have any expertise or expertise related to the contact with the State’s official approval, and that it did not have been properly installed.

(4) The damages from the construction company of this case, who received a contract for the installation of the steel disaster team from the construction company of this case, were integrated into a team with the defendant Kim Yong-mor Kim-mor Kim, and ordered the above construction site to conduct the above installation work and the contact work for this purpose. Although the above Defendants did not clearly set a cargo relationship or main relationship between the above Defendants, the above Defendants' work experience in the contact with the defendant Kim Yong-mor was no more clearly set, and the defendant Kim Yong-mor was given instructions or requests to the defendant Kim Yong-mor, the above Kim Yong-mor could be seen as working in accordance with this. The above Defendants stated in the investigation agency and this court to the effect that the defendant was conducting the main mor Kim-mor Kim-mor Kim-mort work (the defendant Kim-mor was directly conducted in the prosecutor's investigation and the defendant Kim-mort work performed at the time of the occurrence of the fire, it is reasonable to view that all the above defendants were not in the duty to prevent the spread of asbestos on the date of the fire.

⑤ Ultimately, Defendant Kim Yong-mar and Kim Jong-maid, as an employee in contact with the above Defendants, have a duty of care to prevent fire potential caused by the above examination, which is accompanied by the use of malination. Although they were aware at the construction site at the time of the use of malination, they did not clearly take measures to prevent the occurrence of fire due to the exposure of inflammable substances, etc., and by such negligence, the fire in this case occurred due to the malination during the use of mal in contact with Defendant Kim Yong-maid, and there is sufficient proximate causal relation between the existence of occupational negligence and its occupational negligence.

B. As to the former team leader of the defendant

1) According to Articles 2 and 20 of the former Fire Prevention and Installation, Maintenance, and Safety Control of Fire-Fighting Systems Act (Amended by Act No. 15533, Mar. 27, 2018); Articles 5 and 22 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Act on Fire Prevention and Installation, Maintenance, and Safety Control of Fire-Fighting Systems (Amended by Presidential Decree No. 28996, Jun. 26, 2018); Article 14 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Act on Fire Prevention and Installation, Maintenance, and Safety Control of Fire-Fighting Systems (Amended by Ordinance No. 72, Sep. 5, 2018); Article 2 of the former Framework Act on Fire-Fighting (Amended by Act No. 1533, Mar. 27, 2018); “related persons of a building, etc. falling within a specific fire brigade” shall be determined as a fire safety manager; “the owner or occupant of a specific fire-fighting object subject to fire-fighting” shall be separately responsible for the fire safety manager or manager.

2) In light of the following circumstances acknowledged based on the aforementioned legal principles, comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, the Defendant was actually assigned a person in charge of safety management, including fire prevention of the above building, from the Erigram test, which is the owner of the Nulll building (hereinafter referred to as the “main building”), which is a specific fire-fighting object, and actually performed the role of a person in charge of safety management, including fire prevention of the above building. Even if the Defendant was notified by the minimum head of the Defendant on the day immediately before the occurrence of the fire, he was found to have contributed to the occurrence of the above fire because he did not take safety measures, such as work safety education by workers, field supervision, etc., and thus, the Defendant is liable for the crime of occupationalization

① This building constitutes a specific fire-fighting object prescribed in Article 20 of the Act on Fire Prevention and Installation, Maintenance, and Safety Control of Fire-Fighting Systems and Article 22 (1) 2 (b) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act with an shopping mall of steel-framed reinforced concrete structure, the aggregate floor area of which is 7 stories above, 12 stories above, 37,45.76 meters below, and the owner of this building constitutes a specific fire-fighting object prescribed in Article 22 (1) 2 (b) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act. The 10th floor of this building is Eritheme. The 10th floor of this building is the object of fire-fighting, and Eritheme under a lease contract with the head of ○○○○ and the rental contract was concluded around October 17, 2017, and it is difficult to view that the head of this building was a lessee of the building immediately before completion of the construction work in K, and eventually, the head of ○○ is a lessee of the building in question.

The decision-making date of the dispute resolution committee entered into a contract that provides the management of the facilities of its shopping mall building to the M protocol, including the repair and defect management of the building, and the prevention of accidents including fire, and the Kim field was appointed on or around December 17, 2017 by the M protocol's field agent dispatched to the building in this case, and the Kim field was reported to the fire-fighting unit manager of the building in this case. However, the decision-making committee of the dispute resolution committee entered into a contract that contracts the general affairs and building management services for its shopping mall building to the KCA service, a subsidiary company, in addition to the above contract, and according to the terms and conditions of the contract, the general affairs and U.S. dollars, cleaning, parking, and security-related affairs related to the building in this case were entrusted, and the defendant was an on-site agent of the building in this case as a staff member of the decision-making committee.

③ In accordance with the terms and conditions of the contract between Eritech and E services, there is room for seeing that the contents of the two companies overlap with those of their employees at the site of construction. In other words, he was under the direction of the Defendant, and he was in charge of overall building management, such as facility safety management and fire prevention work of this building. In general, when the interior works are carried out by the lessee, the fire safety management work at the site of the construction was carried out under the responsibility of Eritech and the director at the site of the construction site. On the completion of the construction, the Mritech did not participate in the facility management work including fire prevention on the 10th floor of this building. At that time, the Defendant, who was an employee at the site of MM, had been in charge of the above facility management work, was also in charge of the safety management work of the building at the site of this case, and the Defendant, who was in charge of the safety manager at the site of this case, was also in charge of the safety manager at the site of this case and stated to the following purport.

In addition, in the examination of suspect two times, the prosecutor's office recognized that he/she made a statement at the time of the examination of the above police officer, and recognized that he/she performed partial management of the above M protocol as an agent, and the safety management and fire prevention of the building of this case was transferred from Erithy services to Erithy, but even thereafter, the head of the Nrith Group of the Nrith Group in charge of the Erithy Group, who is in charge of the instant fire, has been in charge of the aforementioned duties at the time of the instant fire. According to the defendant's statement at the time of investigation, the defendant, including the construction site of this case, can be deemed to have been recognized as having performed the role of the safety manager responsible for fire prevention, etc. of the entire building)

⑤ Also, in the second investigation into suspect interrogation, the Defendant had already been in charge of the management of facilities and defects in the building itself, which became a building construction, and, in the case of the interior works, such as the 10th floor of this building, Ma prote was not in charge of the management of the facilities. The Defendant, who is not the Kim Jong-field, made a statement to the effect that he or she had been in charge of the management of the facilities and equipment of the building, and accordingly, he or she did not have been in charge of the management of the building. The Defendant, who was in charge of the construction of this case, made a statement to the effect that he or she had been in charge of the management of the building at least ten stories of this case, and that he or she did not have been in charge of the construction of this case, made a statement to the effect that he or she did not have been in charge of the construction of this case, and that he or she did not have been in charge of the construction of the building at least the construction site, made a statement to the effect that he or made a statement to the following purport.

7) The Defendant stated to the effect that, unlike the statement made by the Defendant in the Defendant’s newspaper at this court, there was no room for performing the construction work of the building in question in practice, and that the safety work at the construction site of this case is not one’s own business or is not a fire safety manager at the Kim field. However, the Defendant stated to the effect that the statement made by the prosecution was not made by false or strong pressure, but by his own intention, and that the Defendant was inevitably able to take part in the construction work at the construction site of this case in cooperation and civil petition resolution, and that the contents were able to take part in the safety work at the construction site of this case. More than anything else, the Defendant allowed the Defendant to take part in the construction work at the construction site of this case and issued a work permit to do so, and that the Defendant did not directly perform the construction work at the construction site of this case at the construction site of this case, and that the Defendant was not present at the construction site of this case, and that the Defendant was not present at the construction site of this case at the construction site of this case.

③ Although the Defendant had conducted safety education at the early stage of the instant construction, and carried out safety education, such as placement of fire extinguisherss and on-site visits, the Defendant did not have visited or visited the construction site at the time of the instant fire work to provide safety education to workers, including Kim Yong-res and Kim-res on the date of the instant fire. As to this, the Defendant stated that there was no notification or contact from the investigation agency to the minimum head of the investigation agency that he would be in contact with the fire on the day of the fire, and that such notification or contact was false in this court, asserting that there was no possibility that the Defendant would be in contact with the fire on the day of the fire. On the other hand, as seen above, the minimum head of the statement made to the effect that the Defendant notified the Defendant that he would be in contact with the preceding day and on the day of the fire on the day of the fire, and that such statement appears consistent from the investigation agency to the present court, in light of the minimum head of the Defendant’s position, and the procedure at the time of the front construction, it is difficult to view that the Defendant had any motive or reason to be found criminal liability for confession.

9) Ultimately, while Mprop Kim was appointed as a fire safety controller of the building in this case, the actual owner of the building in this case, was in charge of fire prevention and other safety management for the construction site in this case from the date of the KCA, which is the owner of the building in this case, the defendant actually performed the safety management duties as the defendant, while Kim field or Mpropin's employees did not participate in the safety management duties for the construction site in this case, and in such a situation, the defendant neglected to take safety management measures or supervision duties on the date of the fire, resulting in the fire in the above fire, and thus, the proximate causal relation between the defendant's occupational negligence and the fire caused by the fire can be sufficiently recognized.

For the reason of sentencing, Defendant Kim Yong-maid and Kim Jong-maid were engaged in the contact work, which is a dangerous work using a fire, and neglected safety measures. Defendant minimum head of the field office, supervised the work of Kim Yong-maid and Kim Kim-maid and did not fulfill his/her duty of care, such as thoroughly taking safety measures, and did not perform his/her duty of care, such as taking sufficient safety measures. Defendant former head of the field office did not act as a fire safety manager at the construction site of this case even though he/she actually fell under the actual fire safety manager at the construction site of this case. As such, there was a large scale of property damage to the owner of this building, the 11th floor, and the 12th floor lessee. In light of the purpose and content of this case’s crime, degree of damage, etc., it is inevitable for the Defendants to be punished with imprisonment without prison labor, since the crime is very heavy and there is a high possibility of criticism and the possibility of severe criminal liability to the Defendants.

However, regardless of the recognition of the crime in the case of Defendant Kim Yong-mar and Kim Jong-mar stated that they had a great responsibility for the occurrence of the fire of this case and they reflect their mistakes in depth. Defendant Kim Yong-mar fully recognized the crime of this case and made efforts to extinguishing the fire by using fire extinguishers and water immediately upon the occurrence of the fire of this case, Defendant Kim Yong-mar, Kim Yong-mar, and the minimum head of the fire, but they failed to extinguishing the fire by attaching fire to combustible material, the rapid expansion of fire and failure to extinguishing the fire. In the case of Defendant Jeon-mar, it is difficult to view that the degree of contribution or role in the crime of this case was more serious than that of other Defendants. Defendant Kim Jong-mar expressed his intention not to punish the above Defendant, Defendant Kim Jong-mar, who was the victim, expressed his intention not to commit the crime of this case, Defendant Kim Jong-mar, who did not have any criminal punishment, and that there is no possibility for other Defendants to be punished by the crime of this case’s normal injury or punishment by taking into account its roles and circumstances.

Judges Park Jong-woo

1) At present on the 10th floor of this building, a congested restaurant is in operation.

2) The settlement column for the above fire safety plan is indicated in the column of the fire safety controller, the chief of the facility, the chief of the general affairs team, the head of the support office, and the head of

In the column of the fire safety controller and the director of the facility, the Kim field, and the head of the general affairs team shall record the defendant's signature and the private person.

In this regard, the defendant will review and settle the contents in order after Kim Jong's draft and settlement.

3) However, the Defendant is not the prosecutor’s question to the effect that the general safety manager of the building in this case is appointed.

The 10th floor of the building, which is the direction of the head of the gambling store while making a statement that it is considered to be the head of the gambling store.

A statement was made to the effect that the construction site was managed and supervised. Even based on such a statement, the Defendant is subject to this statement.

The location of safety management and fire prevention for the construction site of this case shall be sufficiently recognized.

4) On the other hand, in the case of Defendant Jeon-soo, the safety management of the building including the instant construction site from the Egypt date

alone with the overall management and general affairs of the building, such as handling of various civil petitions as well as affairs;

This seems to have been carried out, but it seems that the defendant has a significant burden on the defendant.

the fire of this case, if civil and criminal liability arises with respect to the safety of the building, it is before the defendant

Only employees belonging to E Services, including the team leader, shall be attributed to such employees, and due to the safety management of the actual trustee and the building;

No liability shall be imposed on the beneficiary, which is in fact a type of risk or liability.

In addition, there seems to be a possibility of criticism on the side of the Egypta, and at the time of the fire.

the fire station in the fire safety control of the main building before the fire of this case.

Considering the various circumstances, such as the fact that there were considerable points to be pointed out, this building is the case in the occurrence of the fire in this case.

It is judged that it is difficult to see that there is no responsibilities on the side of the Egypta, the owner of the partnership. This part is also in sentencing.

An additional note shall be made with reference to the information.