beta
Text
The judgment below
The part against the Defendants is reversed in entirety.
Defendants shall be punished by a fine of KRW 5,000,00.
Reasons
1. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor on the gist of the grounds of appeal, Defendant A may fully recognize the facts charged in the instant case against the Defendants that the instant accident occurred due to neglecting safety measures as a general safety control manager.
2. The violation of Articles 67 subparag. 1 and 23(1) of the Industrial Safety and Health Act against a business owner’s judgment is established only when a business owner instructs the place of business operated by him/her to take safety measures as prescribed by the Rules of the Safety and Health Act, without taking safety measures as prescribed by Article 23(1) of the same Act, or neglects to take such measures despite being aware of the fact that the above work was performed without taking safety measures. The mere fact that the above dangerous work was performed at the place of business of the business owner without taking necessary safety measures is not established.
(2) In light of the legal principles as seen earlier, if an employer does not take safety measures at a workplace, then the employer is aware of the fact that the workplace does not take safety measures at the workplace and does not take such measures in the future, but does not leave the workplace as it is, and if the workplace does work without taking safety measures at the workplace, the crime is established even if the employer did not individually and specifically instruct the workplace to do so, even if the employer did not take such measures.
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Do11906, Nov. 25, 2010). Moreover, inasmuch as Article 66-2 and Article 23(1) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act, which was based on the facts charged, provides for aggravated elements of a crime under the premise that the term “violation of Articles 67 subparag. 1 and 23(1) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act” is established, whether the term “violation of Articles 66-2 and 23(1) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act” is established or not.