beta
Text
Defendant
A and B shall be punished by a fine of 5,000,000 won, and Defendant C shall be punished by a fine of 3,000,000 won, respectively.
Defendant
A. A.
Reasons
Punishment of the crime
1. Defendant A and Defendant B’s representative director of the Company C, who is in charge of overall management and supervision over the safety and health of employees belonging to the Company C, including the victim D, and the person in charge of the “E” carried out by the Company C. The Defendant B is a person who is engaged in the business of operating the Fow at the site of “E” at the port of “E” of the Company C as a daily worker belonging to the Forestry Cooperatives and the Timber Distribution Center at the port of port.
Defendant
A around March 13, 2018, around 16:20 on the street in the south-gu G at the port of port, in front of the “H”, and Defendant B was engaged in the collection of waste trees generated from the electric refining business at the same time, at the same place, and at the same time and place.
In such a case, Defendant A, as a field supervisor of the company C, was not allowed to access the vehicle in the vicinity of the company at the site. Defendant B had a duty of care to safely handle the vehicle by checking whether there is a person in the vicinity of the vehicle at the site while working by using the vehicle at the site, and preventing the goods in the cargo space from falling out of the cargo space.
Nevertheless, Defendant A neglected to arrange the residues of waste trees in terms of the victim D (n, 67 years of age) who is an employee of C, and in terms of the cargo partitions, and Defendant B did not check whether there is a person in the vicinity of the cargo partitions and did not automatically check whether there is a person in the vicinity of the cargo partitions, Defendant A, who was installed in the cargo partitions of the vehicle in the place of the vehicle in the place of the vehicle in which the safety rail was set up, was turned down to the head of the victim, who was arranging the residues of waste trees from next to the cost of the safety rail.
Ultimately, the Defendants jointly breached their duty of care as seen above, and the Defendants’ negligence while engaging in their duties so as to bear the cost of safe railing.