logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2016.08.18 2016노1773
업무상과실치사등
Text

All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The ground for explosion of a building by misunderstanding the facts or misunderstanding the legal principles is that the valves of the building route are not closed due to the defect in the control board by the building, and thus, inflammable substances or gas was flown into the above workplace. The explosion of the building route cannot be deemed to have occurred due to Defendant A’s breach of duty of care in preventing risks or the victim F’s negligence who operated the building route.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendants guilty of all the facts charged of this case is erroneous by misapprehending the legal principles.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendants (a fine of KRW 4 million) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The following facts can be acknowledged according to each evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below on the assertion of misunderstanding of the facts or misunderstanding of the legal principles.

① Defendant B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Company”) established a place of work in AS located in R, which is located in R, and employed 10 workers and carried on various metals, and Defendant A operated the said company as the representative director of the Defendant Company.

② Around November 10, 2012, the Defendant Company: (a) received necessary dried lines, etc. from AL, the representative of AT, from the head of the metal map (hereinafter “instant dry lines”); and (b) supplied the instant dry lines to the Defendant Company until February 2013 and completed the construction.

③ On December 20, 2012, the above AL was supplied with gas burners (hereinafter “gas burners of this case”) necessary to heating the instant building route from AU’s representative by around December 20, 2012. N was installed in the Defendant Company with AL at the time when the AL supplied the instant building route to the Defendant Company.

(4) The defendant, including the victim F, G, and H.

arrow