logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 전주지방법원 2019.01.16 2018고정136
산업안전보건법위반
Text

The defendant shall be innocent.

Reasons

1. The summary of the facts charged is the actual business owner of C in the official city B, who is a business owner of C in the official city, and is a business owner under the Occupational Safety and Health Act who manages duties concerning safety and health of one full-time worker by being awarded a contract for 800,000 won for replacement work from the Korea Electric Power Corporation’s headquarters, which was contracted by the Korea Electric Power Corporation

At around 14:06 on July 15, 2016, the Defendant violated the Occupational Safety and Health Act as follows with respect to the accidents involving images (e.g., 22% in 2.5% in f., 5% in f., 2/14% in f., in f., face, trees, etc., and 3/3% in f., in f., in a telegraphic pole located in f., the Defendant, who was employed as his daily employed by the Defendant, due to the occurrence of a e.g., bad pets in the telegraphic line located in the former

When an employee performs electricity work at the place near the charging path, the business owner shall install a studio protection apparatus suitable for the relevant voltage.

Nevertheless, the defendant dissatisfying part of the above protective devices for the convenience of work when replacing the protective devices installed prior to the replacement of a peter.

(b) A business owner shall regularly verify whether the devices used to perform the work maintain safe performance in the charging path, and shall take measures immediately where any worker requests maintenance or exchange by discovering defects, cracks, damage or other damage before using the devices used to perform the active work.

Nevertheless, the Defendant failed to maintain the equipment by discovering defects, ruptures, breakages, and other damages before using the equipment on a regular basis without checking whether it maintains safe performance.

2. The facts charged in the instant case are based on the premise that the Defendant is a business owner who received a contract for the construction work (hereinafter “instant construction work”) from E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “E”).

arrow