logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 2018.08.09 2018고단1162
업무상과실치사등
Text

Defendant

A A Fine of 4,00,000 won, Defendant B Co., Ltd. of a fine of 5,000,000 won, Defendant C of a fine of 7,000 won.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

Defendant

D Co., Ltd. is a business owner established for the purpose of construction business, etc., and Defendant B Co., Ltd. is a corporation established for the purpose of construction business, etc., and is a business owner who subcontracted the construction of steel reinforced concrete works, which are part of the “G” undertaken in Daejeon Dong-gu. Defendant C is a site manager belonging to the above construction site and is a person in charge of the safety management of workers belonging to the above construction site and subcontractors, and Defendant A is a site manager belonging to Defendant B, who is in charge of the safety management of employees belonging to the

1. Defendant A, at the construction site above around 10:50 on December 8, 2017, had his/her employees, such as the victim H (68 tax) perform the work of laying the wall above the 101st century.

At the time, the victim was engaged in the work on the scam which is at the risk of falling, and in such a case, the defendant has a duty of care to install a rail at the end of the non-scam work board in accordance with the standards set forth in Article 13 of the Rules on Industrial Safety and Health in order to prevent the fall of workers.

Nevertheless, the Defendant: (a) was installed at a point with a height of at least 120 centimeters and at least 142 centimeters in a height of the upper rail of the above vision, but only one part of the middle rail, which is not at least two parts, caused the death of a diversity damage, etc. at the Daejeon Sung-si Hospital of the University of Slock, where the victim was seated and was on the 26th floor below the 11 meters following the 11th of the same day.

2. Defendant B, who was an employee of Defendant B, did not fully exercise due care and supervision over the safety management of his employees, thereby violating the preceding paragraph.

3. Defendant C

(a) December 2017

arrow