2016 Highis 1391A. Interference with supply of gas by occupational negligence

(b) High-Pressure Gas Safety Control Act;

1. A. B. A.

2. A. (b) B

3. A. b. C

4. (b) D Co., Ltd.

M Representative Director

In the case of a new police officer (prosecutions), Park Jong-dae (Public Trial)

Attorney E, F, and astronomical research (for Defendant B)

Law Firm Tae (for Defendant A and D Co., Ltd.)

Attorney I

June 27, 2017

Defendant A’s fine of KRW 6,00,000, Defendant C’s fine of KRW 5,00,000, 000, and Defendant D Company

gold 3,000,000 won, respectively.

Defendant A or C’s failure to pay the above fine, the period of 100,000 won converted into one day;

The custody of senior citizens in a workhouse.

Defendant A, C, and D are ordered to pay an amount equivalent to the above fine to Defendant A, C, and D.

Defendant B is innocent.

The summary of the judgment against Defendant B is publicly announced.

Criminal facts

Defendant A is the chief of the D Co., Ltd. located in the J in Ulsan-gun, Ulsan-gun, the site manager at the site of the installation of gas pipes of L, and Defendant C is a person who entered into a contract with the said D Co., Ltd. with the said D Co., Ltd. and was engaged in excavation and astronomical work at the site of the above pipe installation, and Defendant D Co., Ltd (representative M) is a corporation established for the purpose of civil engineering and construction work.

1. Defendant A, C.

(a) Interference with the supply of gas by occupational negligence;

D Co., Ltd. was subcontracted from N around June 16, 2015 to N (State) the Nsan factory located in Ulsan-gu 0, Ulsan-gun P to approximately eight km in the section of P of Ulsan-gun, Ulsan-gun, Qu (GN2) supply pipes laid underground.

Accordingly, on April 1, 2016, at around 08:45, at L two-lanes located in Ulsan-gun, Ulsan-gun, the Defendants laid the land near the area laid underground for the construction of underground water pipes for the underground water supply pipes, and subsequently, the Defendants were engaged in the construction of steel structures at the same time.

Since various obstacles, such as water supply pipes, cable lines, and gas pipes, have been laid underground at the above work site, the Defendants confirmed whether there exist obstacles, such as gas pipes, etc., at the point where the Defendants intended to perform the astronomical work through the pipeline drawings, and performed the excavation work at sufficient intervals from the point where the obstacles are laid underground, and there was a duty of care to avoid damaging existing gas pipes, etc. by performing the excavation work at the point where there is no obstacle.

Nevertheless, the Defendants neglected this and did not properly confirm the location of the gas pipeline existing in the pipe drawing, etc., and received a request from the pipe-owner S to 4m wide, 9m high, 2.5m high, 2.5m high, or 3m high, and to conduct astronomical work after confirming that there was no pipeline, but to follow such request. Defendant A and C instructed Defendant A and C to conduct astronomical work without appropriately performing the test excavation, and Defendant B, while performing astronomical work in the astronomical air with the air with the eropoch with the epoching frame and epoching pipe, which is owned by the victim R (ju), by destroying high-tension pipelines by the air exhauster, thereby blocking the passage of the vehicle nearby the accident for about four hours in the vicinity of the accident.

Accordingly, the Defendants conspired to damage gas structures due to occupational negligence, thereby hindering the supply of gas, thereby causing public danger.

(b) High-Pressure Gas Safety Control Act;

The Defendants damaged high-pressure gas facilities due to negligence in the course of business by drilling high-pressure gas pipelines, which are owned by the victim R (State), into air with a tent, while engaging in ceiling work for underground gas pipelines at the time and place described in the above paragraph (a).

2. Defendant A’s violation of the High-Pressure Gas Safety Control Act;

No excavation workers shall perform excavation works before receiving notice of commencement of excavation works from the Information Support Center.

The Defendant performed excavation works at the time, time, place, etc. described in paragraph (1)(A) before receiving notice of commencement from the Excavation Work Information Support Center.

3. Violation of the High-Pressure Gas Safety Control Act by Defendant D Co.

The Defendant, at the time, at the time, and at the place specified in Paragraph A, destroyed facilities with high-pressure gas due to occupational negligence as set forth in Paragraph 1(b) and performed excavation work before receiving notice of commencement of excavation work as set forth in Paragraph 2.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant C’s legal statement, Defendant A’s partial legal statement

1. Witness S, A (Defendant C, D Company), B (Defendant A, C, and D Company),

C. Each legal statement of Defendant A and D Company

1. Each prosecutor's protocol of interrogation of the defendant A, C, and B

1. Situation report, each notification of excavation permission, and opinion submission following an application for permission to occupy and use a road, N Co., Ltd. (Do)

for excavation works (cases of response to a request for consultation) and consultation related to high-pressure gas facilities

1. Each investigation report, each internal investigation report, and a report on the occurrence of an accident as a Onnuri fire fighter;

[Defendant A, D Co., Ltd, and their defense counsel asserted to the effect that, with respect to the part concerning interference with the supply of gas by occupational negligence, the crime is not committed since the accident of this case occurred while engaging in a astronomical work without any test excavation for some areas believed the horses of R's practitioners in the instant excavation work area and performing a astronomical work without any test excavation for some areas.

According to the above evidence, the defendants did not carry out the test excavation of part of the excavation work area of this case. The defendants did not carry out the test excavation of the part of the excavation work area of this case. The defendants laid down under the order while conducting the astronomical engineering work for that part. At least, the defendants could avoid the heat accident of this case if they did not properly carry out the test excavation ordered by the defendants, so it cannot be said that the defendants did not violate the duty of due care (the defendant A did not go through the test of this part of this case where communication lines and water supply officers were discovered at the time of the test of this case and it was believed that the gas managers were not laid underground. However, the point where the accident occurred during the actual astronomical construction work was less than 50 to 60 meters away from the communication line and water supply pipes, and the test of this case was not carried out immediately after the occurrence of the accident, and the level of risk of the nearby gas pipe's damage (the level of risk of the accident of this case 1) at the time of the accident.

Application of Statutes

1. Relevant Article of the Criminal Act and the selection of punishment for the crime;

○ Defendant A: Articles 173-2(2) and (1), 173(1), and 30 of the Criminal Act.

Article 38(2) of the High-Pressure Gas Safety Control Act, and Article 30 of the Criminal Act.

Article 40 subparagraph 12 of the High-Pressure Gas Safety Control Act, and Article 23-3 (6) of the High-Pressure Gas Safety Control Act.

Preservation and Excavation Works (the point of each fine). Selection of each fine

○ Defendant C: Articles 173-2(2) and (1), 173(1), and 30 of the Criminal Act.

Article 38(2) of the High-Pressure Gas Safety Control Act, and Article 30 of the Criminal Act.

(2) Selection of each fine

○ Defendant D Co., Ltd.: Articles 42-2, 38(2), and 40 of the High-Pressure Gas Safety Control Act

12, Article 23-3(6)

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

Article 37 (former part), Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act

1. Detention in a workhouse;

○ Defendant A, C: Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act

1. Order of provisional payment;

Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

(Defendant B)

1. Facts charged

A as the chief of the D Co., Ltd. in the J at all times, A is the field director at the site of installing L's nitrogen gas pipes in Ulsan-gun, Ulsan-gun, and C and Defendant B enter into a contract with the said D Co., Ltd.

D Co., Ltd. (Representative M) is a corporation established for the purpose of civil engineering and construction work.

(a) Interference with the supply of gas by occupational negligence;

D Co., Ltd. received from N around June 16, 2015 a subcontract from N (State) to The Nsan factory located in Ulsan-gu 0, Ulsan-gun P, Ulsan-gun, for the supply pipes laid underground in approximately approximately approximately 8 km section from P (GN2) Ulsan-gu.

Accordingly, at around 08 April 1, 2016: around 08:45, Defendant B laid the land near the area laid underground for the construction of nitrogen pipes and carried out the construction of steel structure at the same time.

Since various obstacles, such as water supply pipes, cable lines, and gas pipes, have been laid underground at the above work site, the Defendants confirmed whether there exist obstacles, such as gas pipes, etc., at the point where the Defendants intended to perform the astronomical work through the pipeline drawings, and performed the excavation work at sufficient intervals from the point where the obstacles are laid underground, and there was a duty of care to avoid damaging existing gas pipes, etc. by performing the excavation work at the point where there is no obstacle.

Nevertheless, Defendant A, C, and Defendant B neglected this and did not properly verify the location of gas pipelines existing in the pipe drawings, etc., and requested the pipeline owner to conduct astronomical work after checking whether there was no pipeline from the pipeline hold point, 4m wide, 9m high, 2.5m high, 3m high, and 4m high from the pipeline hold point, but the request was made to conduct astronomical work. However, Defendant B instructed Defendant B to conduct astronomical work on the part of failing to comply with the necessary hearing and not carrying out the test excavation. While Defendant B was engaged in astronomical work with an air pipe with an air pipe with an air pipe with an air pipe with an air frame with an air pipe frame, it was completely obstructed the passage of the nearby vehicle for about 4 hours due to damage to the air pressure pipe, which is owned by the victim R (ju).

As a result, A, C, Defendant B conspired to damage gas structures due to occupational negligence, thereby hindering the supply of gas, thereby causing public danger.

(b) High-Pressure Gas Safety Control Act;

A, C, and Defendant B damaged high-pressure gas facilities due to occupational negligence by drilling high-pressure gas pipelines, which are the high-pressure gas pipelines owned by the victim R (owner) into air with a tent, at the date and time set forth in the above paragraph A, and at the same place, while performing astronomical works for underground gas pipelines.

2. Determination:

In light of the following circumstances recognized by this court based on the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this court, i.e., ① Defendant B was a astronomical engineer employed as a daily work against D Co., Ltd.; ② Defendant B performed only the astronomical work at a designated place under the direction of C, the employer, i.e., the contractor; ③ the selection of the working place (such as a ceiling, etc.) was entirely decided by A, subcontractor; and Defendant B did not have any involvement in the examination; and it was not within the scope of his working authority (the facts charged are stated in the facts charged, but there is no evidence to acknowledge the fact that Defendant B received such excavation from S.). In light of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the evidence alone does not have any other evidence to confirm that Defendant B did not have any duty of care like the above facts charged, namely, the duty of care, and the duty of care as a underground pipeline, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge the lack of the duty of care.

3. Conclusion

Thus, since the facts charged against Defendant B constitute a case where there is no proof of a crime, the judgment of innocence is rendered pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the summary of the judgment is publicly announced pursuant to the main sentence of Article 58(2) of

Judges Lee Jin-dong