2016 Highest 5332 Injury by occupational negligence

A

Yellow acceptance (prosecution) and public trial;

Attorney B (Korean National Assembly)

June 23, 2017

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of seven million won.

When the defendant fails to pay the above fine, the defendant shall be confined in the workhouse for the period calculated by converting 100,000 won into one day.

In order to order the provisional payment of an amount equivalent to the above fine.

Criminal facts

The defendant, as a borrower of C'D', is a person engaged in the business of providing the above vehicle to a building outer wall work at the request of a construction business operator, etc.

The Defendant, around 12:30 on March 17, 2016, operated boom boomes by providing booms with a 4th floor building tower in Dongdaemun-gu, Seoul with a boom boom boomer in order to perform work to get passengers on board or transport materials, removal materials, etc., the Defendant had a high-tension cable with a 22,900 V sign marked from the outer wall of the 4th floor of the building in question, and the 4th floor of the above 4th floor in order to get passengers on board the above 4th floor of the building. As such, the person engaged in the operation of the 4th floor in the accusation is likely to have a reduction in the number of the above 4th floor after being on board the 1.1m in order to ensure safe boarding of the above high-tension cable by notifying the person who installed or boarded in the above high-tension cable of the danger of getting passengers on board the vehicle in advance.

Nevertheless, the Defendant neglected this and sustained injury in the treatment days due to the negligence that the victim F (50 years of age) boom boom boom boom boom boomed to the lower part of the above roof tower when the victim passed the above high-tension cable, which caused the victim to be cut to the lower part of the above boom, and caused the victim to be cut to the lower part of the above boom by video, etc. of 3 degrees of hand and hand, etc.

Summary of Evidence

1. The defendant's partial statement in the first protocol of trial;

1. Legal statement of witness G;

1. The suspect examination protocol of the accused by the prosecution (including the part in which each statement is written in A and G);

1. Investigation reports (investigation of statements and submission of diagnosis reports), internal investigation reports (fields and internal investigation reports) and internal investigation reports (internal investigation reports on the conditions of the patient's hospital), investigation reports (Attachment of treatment manuals for the suspect), and investigation reports (verification of high voltage wire voltages, etc.);

Application of Statutes

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

Article 268 of the Criminal Code, Selection of Fines

1. Detention in a workhouse;

Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act

1. Order of provisional payment;

Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

Judgment on the argument of the defendant and defense counsel

1. Summary of the assertion

The defendant is not the subject of duty of care in relation to the accident in the judgment, and there is no negligence in violation.

2. Determination

The following circumstances acknowledged by the above evidence duly adopted and examined by the court, namely, ① the Defendant was an independent business operator who owns the vehicle in question and directly operated the said vehicle at the construction site upon the request of the construction business operator. As such, it is reasonable to view that the scope of accidents that may occur due to the operation of the said vehicle is included not only in the number of operating but also in the external factors such as dangerous environment. ② Under the Industrial Safety and Health Act, the owner of the interior works has a duty of care to prevent accidents, such as electric shock accidents, etc., in relation to the operation of the vehicle in question. However, the Defendant did not have any ground to view that the above duty of care was extinguished because the Defendant violated the above duty of care in relation to the operation of the vehicle in question, ③ The Defendant installed a electric wire at the 4th floor of the 4th floor building in question, and the Defendant had a duty of care in handling the vehicle in question without any pressure on the operation of the vehicle in question.

Reasons for sentencing

In light of the degree of injury caused by the crime of this case, although the case is not somewhat weak, the defendant did not properly perform the obligation to compensate for the damage to the victim. Meanwhile, the defendant's operation of interior works in accordance with the direction of the above construction business operator, which led to the crime of this case, is considered as being committed in accordance with the order of the above construction business operator. There is no evidence that there was any error in the operation of the defendant at the time, and there is no evidence that there was any error in the defendant's operation, and the victim did not pay special attention to the high-tension line in the nearby place while getting on board, thereby having contacted the victim so that there were many errors in the occurrence of the accident, and the defendant did not have any particular criminal history prior to the instant case, and the defendant did not have any other criminal history prior to the instant case, and the punishment shall be determined

Judge Han Han-sung