beta
Text
All appeals filed by the prosecutor against the Defendants are dismissed.
Reasons
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the Defendants did not take measures such as the attachment of a sub-lease and the connection with the safety of sub-lease during the use of the accusation room, and it is clear that the employees exceeded the work team, and the facts charged of the instant case are recognized. However, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
2. The facts charged in the instant case is a corporation engaged in civil engineering and construction works in Nam-gu, Nam-gu, Sig-si, in order to perform the above “H” as a contractor who contracted the part of fire-fighting facility works to A corporation. Defendant C is a person responsible for safety and health management for the employees and the contractors of the above construction site with the site warden.
Defendant
A Co., Ltd. is a corporation engaged in a small-scale mining business in Nam-gu I at the port of port and is a business owner who performs fire-fighting facility works among “H” under construction in Nam-gu J at the port of port, and Defendant B is a representative director of the above corporation, who exercises overall control over matters concerning safety and health of workers.
A. On June 30, 2014, Defendant B instructed K to conduct a practical survey on the site of the head of the singler who was employed by the Defendant at the construction site, using the accusation work unit.
When a business owner uses a complaint boom, he/she shall, except in cases where he/she installs a safety booming device and connects safety booms with the safety booms of the workplace, have the passengers go out of the work stand.
Nevertheless, as a result of the Defendant’s direction of the above work in the state where he installed an installation of an installation of an installation of a sub-lease and did not connect the safety belt, the Defendant fell on the ground below 9.1m and caused the death of the worker who was engaged in the practical work.