Defendant

A Imprisonment without prison labor for four months, and Defendant B shall be punished by imprisonment without prison labor for four months.

, however, from the date this judgment becomes final.

Criminal facts

Defendant

A is the actual operator of landscaping planting Construction Business Co., Ltd. in South-gu at port C, a person who exercises overall control over all the affairs concerning safety and health of his employees, and Defendant B is the person who is engaged in the operation of 3.5 tons of c.5 tons of c.

Defendant

A received a request for the landscaping management of street trees from the viewing of the Pohang Port, and around November 11, 2019, around 13:40, the victim G(71 years of age) et al. around the “F” located in Nam-gu E at port, Nam-gu, Nam-gu, Seoul and instructed the victim G(71 years of age) et al. to board the vehicle operated by the Defendant B to perform the po

In such cases, Defendant A, a business owner, has a duty of care to manage and supervise the scene by providing safety education to prevent the danger of workers, such as falling, and to wear safety equipment, safety belts, safety jackets, safety jackets, and safety shoes in a simple safety stand installed, etc. Defendant B, a driver of a motor vehicle for accusation, has a duty of care to manage and supervise the scene. Defendant B, a driver of a motor vehicle for accusation, has a duty of care to safely manage the work squad of the motor vehicle for accusation, to have employees wear safety equipment, safety caps, safety jackets, safety jackets, and safety shoes in the work unit installed at a simple safety stand, and to have employees perform work while maintaining the safety distance from dangerous substances in the workplace.

Nevertheless, the Defendants neglected the above duty of care and did not confirm whether workers wear all safety gear, and did not confirm whether the safety distress was properly installed at the time of the work. Defendant A left the work site at the time of the work, Defendant B left the work site due to occupational negligence that did not maintain the safety distance between street trees and the vehicle for accusation, and the work cost installed at the vehicle for accusation was faced with the roadside number, and due to its shock, the victim fell down to approximately 2.5 meters below the floor.