logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 안산지원 2015.08.07 2014고정272
업무상과실치사
Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3,000,000.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 50,000 won.

Reasons

Criminal facts

The defendant is a managing director, a managing director, and a person in charge of safety management, who is an entrusted wastewater treatment company located in Gyeyang-gu, Ansan-si.

At around 14:50 on August 9, 2013, the Defendant ordered I to replace the external rubber straw pumpsr from the hot water cyclerrrrrrrr.

Although the Defendant had a duty of care to take safety measures such as preventing the danger of shock by blocking all of the hot water cycle pumps in advance, the Defendant caused the victim to die because the victim, who was engaged in the electric power distribution of the hot water cycle pumps in the front line, did not cut off all of the facilities and caused the victim to die.

Summary of Evidence

1. The defendant's partial statement in court (the defendant and his defense counsel ordered the disaster victim I to replace the rubber strawing system, but I, regardless of the work in question, passed ahead of the route connected to the hot water circulation pumps system, and died. Thus, the above defendant asserts that there is no negligence on the part of the defendant. The following circumstances acknowledged by each of the following evidence, i.e., ① the operation of rubber strawing exchange directed by the defendant I to the disaster victim I (hereinafter "the work in this case").

The work is in the vicinity of the hot water cycle pumps connected in a single form through the upper end of the heat exchange season and pipes, which constitutes a work in the charging path as stipulated in Article 321 of the Rules on Industrial Safety and Health, and thus, the business owner must block the route prior to entering the instant work, and the defendant seems to have been well aware of it, and the defendant also seems to have been well aware of it, and the defendant lacks ordinary experience even though he was in the leave of absence, and the work of this case falls under the work in the charging path to the disaster-free employees.

arrow