2016 Highest 68(a) Occupational Death, etc.

(b) Violation of Occupational Safety and Health Act;

1. A. A. and a.bridges;

2. (b) B, removal and transport projects;

○○ (Lawsuits) and ○○ (Public Trial)

Law Firm ○, Attorney ○○○ (Defendant B)

Attorney ○○○ (for Defendant B)

July 21, 2016

Defendant A shall be punished by imprisonment without prison labor for six months and by imprisonment for six months.

However, the execution of each of the above punishment against the Defendants is suspended for two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

To order the Defendants to provide community service for 120 hours each time.

Criminal facts

Defendant B is a person operating an OOOO (OOOO chain store) in the name of the person operating the OOOOO (OOOOOO store in Jung-gu, Seoul. Defendant A is a driver of ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ apartment site, which was put in to bring in the above apartment building ○○○○○○○○○○○○○ apartment site, located on the ○○○○○○○○○○○○ apartment site, which was put in for carrying in the above apartment building ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ apartment site.

On June 29, 2015: around 20, Defendant B instructed four workers, including the victim C (the age of 39), to carry in an article with the above apartment building ○○○○○○○○○○○○○ apartment transport in front of the ○○○○○○○ apartment transport, using a lifts for carrying in the article to four workers, and Defendant A received user fees and daily allowances from Defendant B, and had four workers carry in the article with the above workers; Defendant A had them carry out an article with the duty of care in order not to safely manage and manage the article and transportation of the article, which is an elevator transport vehicle, at the place of work, in order not to safely manage and manage the article and transportation of the article to ensure the safe operation of the article to prevent the transportation of the article and the transportation of the article from being carried out by the owner of the article, which is an elevator.

Nevertheless, the Defendants neglected their respective duties and did not educate, manage, and supervise the employees of the Defendant B so that they do not board the lifts for transportation of animals, but Defendant A did not immediately support the building for the boom for transportation of animals, but did not install a boom for the boom for the boom for the boom for the boom, but proceed with the work without installing a boom for the boom for the boom between the wall of the company and the building, while carrying out the work without installing a boom for the boom for the boom for the boom for the boom for the boom for the boom for the transportation of animals to the employees of the Defendant B, and eventually, the victim fell into the above body of the victim and the victim fell into the above body of the victim (200cm, 90cm, height of 90cm, height of 90cm).

As a result, the Defendants jointly caused the victim's mass transfusions due to the cage at the same place of work by negligence as above, and at the same time Defendant B caused the death of the victim, who is an employee, in violation of the above safety measures obligation.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant A’s legal statement

1. Defendant B’s partial statement

1. Each statement of the witness A, D, and E 1. D and E, each protocol of police statements of the police for D and E;

1. Measures to remove, after being on board in the transport equipment or cable transport equipment in order to remove such things, in the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, the workers of the Lee Jae-in company operated by Defendant B, in other words, where the removal of such things is an apartment house, etc., as in the instant case, in a place where the removal of things is to be made, such as a low-rise house, etc., the removal of such things:

At any time, D from time to time at the time of the instant case, it appears that the above work was performed by the Defendant B while boarding the lifts transport equipment for transport of eths, and that Defendant B did not board the lifts transport equipment for transport of eths to normal workers. However, Defendant B did not take any measures to supervise the actual work site where workers under its jurisdiction board the lifts transport equipment for transport of eths.g., Defendant B did not receive information about the place where the removal of eths should be moved out in advance, and there was no direction on how the employees under its jurisdiction should work in detail if it is difficult for the victim to use eths transport equipment after arrival at the work site. Since safety education carried out by Defendant B was very insufficient from the process or content of this case’s work site, Defendant B did not have a duty of care to ensure the safe operation of eths transport equipment between Defendant B and his employees, in light of the fact that Defendant B did not have a duty of care to transport eths from time to time in the work site.

Application of Statutes

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

Defendant A: Articles 268 and 30 of the Criminal Act: Defendant B: Articles 66-2 and 23(1)1 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act (the point of death of an employee due to a breach of safety measures) and Articles 268 and 30 of the Criminal Act (the point of death by occupational negligence and death)

1. Commercial competition;

Defendant B: Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act

1. Selection of punishment;

Defendant A: Selection of imprisonment without prison labor

Defendant B: Imprisonment Selection

1. Suspension of execution;

Defendants: Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act

1. Social service order;

The Defendants: (a) The reasons for sentencing under Article 62-2(1) of the Criminal Act resulted in severe consequences that could not be complied with as the death of the victim; (b) the bereaved family members of the deceased paid industrial accident compensation insurance money; (c) the deceased’s negligence is not significant; (d) the Defendant A reflects his mistake and did not have any record of punishment for the same kind of crime; and (e) other conditions of sentencing as indicated in the records, such as the Defendants’ age, occupation, character and conduct, family relationship, and circumstances before and after the commission of the crime, shall be comprehensively

Judges Yang Sang-ap