[1] Purport of the "Duty to deliver documents to a person who borrows dangerous machinery, etc." under Article 33 (2) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act, and whether the duty to deliver documents is exempted when the person is dispatched to a driver (negative)

[2] Whether the “work plan” under Article 219 of the Rules on Industrial Safety should include all possible circumstances arising in relation to the use of the relevant vehicle’s construction machinery, or whether the work plan should be modified whenever any detailed work content is modified (negative)

[1] Article 33(2) of the Industrial Safety and Health Act, Article 27(2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Industrial Safety and Health Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 21653, Jul. 30, 2009); Article 49(1)2 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Industrial Safety and Health Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Labor No. 330, Aug. 7, 2009); Article 33(2) of the same Act provides that a lessee of dangerous machinery, etc. shall deliver a document stating the capacity and protection measures of the relevant machinery, etc., characteristics and use of the relevant machinery, etc., repair, repair, and inspection details, and manufacturing date of the main parts; and Article 12 of the above Enforcement Decree [Attachment Table 8] of the same Act provides that “Bkket ck ck ck ck ck ck ck ck ck ck ck ck ck ck ck, etc.;

[2] The work plan under Article 219 of the Rules on Industrial Safety is planned to operate, work methods, etc. in accordance with the type and capacity of construction machinery in consideration of the results of the investigation, such as topography, ground condition, etc. under Article 218, and the work plan is not necessarily required to revise the work plan whenever all the circumstances that may arise in relation to the use of the relevant construction machinery or any changes in detailed work details occur.

[1] Articles 33(2) and 67-2 subparag. 1 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act, Article 27(2) and attached Table 8 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Occupational Safety and Health Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 21653, Jul. 30, 2009); Article 49(1)2 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Occupational Safety and Health Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Labor No. 330, Aug. 7, 2009) / [2] Articles 23(1) and 67 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act; Articles 218 and 219 of the Enforcement Rule of the Industrial Safety and Health Act

Defendant 1 and two others

Defendant 1 and Prosecutor

Law Firm Taeyang, Attorneys Seo Chang-soo et al.

Daegu District Court Decision 2008No3443 Decided April 24, 2009

All appeals are dismissed.

1. Defendant 1’s grounds of appeal are examined.

Article 33(2) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act and Article 27(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 21653, Jul. 30, 2009); Article 49(1)2 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Labor No. 330, Aug. 7, 2009); and Article 33(2) of the same Act require a lessee of dangerous machinery, etc. to deliver a document stating the capacity, characteristics, and use of the relevant machinery, etc., precautions for repair, repair, inspection, and the manufacturing date of the main parts to the lessee; and subparagraph 12 of the Enforcement Decree of the same [Attachment Table 8] provides that the aforementioned dangerous machinery, etc. provides that the duty to deliver the above written statement aims to ensure safety of workers in the workplace by allowing the lessee of dangerous machinery, etc. to be aware of such protection measures; thus, even if the lessee is exempted from the above duty to provide the above operator with the above duty to provide the leased.

In the same purport, the court below rejected Defendant 1’s assertion that Defendant 1 did not have any obligation to deliver the above document because the court below dispatched the driver while lending the instant kacker, and recognized Defendant 1 as a crime of violation of Article 67-2 subparag. 1 and Article 33(2) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act due to the non-delivery of the above document, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to each of the above provisions.

2. Prosecutor's grounds of appeal are examined.

The work plan under Article 219 of the Rules on Industrial Safety is planning the route, method of work, etc. according to the type and capacity of construction machinery of the vehicle system in consideration of the results of the investigation, such as topography, ground condition, etc. under Article 218, and the work plan does not necessarily require the modification of the work plan whenever all circumstances that may arise in relation to the use of the vehicle system’s construction machinery or whenever the detailed work details are modified.

In light of the above legal principles, as long as Defendant 2 and Defendant 3 prepared a work plan stating the kinds, operating routes, working methods, matters to be observed by the commander of the work, and the matters concerning the safety inspection prior to the work, the court below's decision that the work plan did not contain the contents concerning the lifting work using the instant but did not take measures to prevent danger under Article 23 (1) of the Industrial Safety and Health Act because it did not prepare the work plan, is just and acceptable, and there are no errors in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the work plan and the violation of the rules of evidence.

3. Therefore, all appeals by Defendant 1 and the prosecutor are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Shin Young-chul (Presiding Justice)