logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원 2020.01.16 2019노3201
업무상과실치사등
Text

The judgment below

Part concerning Defendant A, E, F, and G shall be reversed.

Defendant

A Imprisonment without prison labor for two years, and Defendant E.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A (1) on February 9, 2019, Defendant A, E, G, and H1 of misunderstanding of facts (Defendant A, E, and F) (Defendant A), Defendant A, who was in charge of smelling in the corridor on the fourth floor of 2019, inspected G and P about four floors. The foregoing P did not check the contact in the old wharf, and the fire occurred in the above container.

In addition, on February 9, 2019, Defendant A heard the check of the above P and took all the measures that Defendant A could take.

Defendant

A was not fully aware of smelling in the old wharf by February 19, 2019, on the date of fire occurrence.

(2) Defendant A took the best steps to seek victims, and there was no person who did not find an emergency exit at the time of the occurrence of the instant fire or was unable to evacuate because the emergency exit width was narrow.

(3) Therefore, even if Defendant A did not breach the occupational duty of care on the prevention of the occurrence of the instant fire and the spread of the fire damage, Defendant A did not have a causal relationship between Defendant A’s breach of the occupational duty of care and the spread of the instant fire and the spread thereof.

B) Defendant E (1) The instant fire occurred within the exclusive area managed by Defendant E, and even if Defendant E took measures following P’s recommendation, it could not prevent the instant fire. Even if Defendant E instructed and supervised F, a fire safety controller, to faithfully conduct fire safety control, Defendant E did not prevent the occurrence of the instant fire and the spread of fire damage. Therefore, there was no causal link between Defendant E’s breach of occupational duty and the occurrence of the instant fire and the spread of the fire and the fire damage. (2) The Defendant ordered G to repair and replace the instant fire in accordance with the order of the chief of competent fire station, and subsequently completed the implementation of the said order.

arrow