200 Highest 4267 A. Violation of the Occupational Safety and Health Act

(b) Occupational death;

1.(a)(b) amba. ○○○ (69********) and the representative director of the Dispute Resolution Bank.

Housing Jeonnam-gun group

Seoul High Court Decision 201

2.(a) ○○○ Co., Ltd.

Gwangju Mine District at its seat

Park ○○○

The red spons, forest land benefiting (public trial)

Attorney Song-chul (for the defendant)

May 28, 2021

Defendant Park ○ shall be punished by imprisonment for one year, and a fine of KRW 10 million shall be imposed on Defendant Park ○○, a stock company, respectively.

Defendant ○○○ Co., Ltd. issued an order to pay an amount equivalent to the above fine.

Criminal facts

1. Family relationship;

Defendant ○○○○ Co., Ltd. is a corporation that employs 10 full-time workers in Gwangju Mine-gu and operates an intermediate waste recycling business. Defendant ○○○ is a representative director of the ○○○○○○○ Co., Ltd. who actually controls and manages matters concerning safety and health of its employees.

2. Criminal facts;

A. Defendant Park ○-○’s crime

1) Occupational death and violation of the Occupational Safety and Health Act

A business owner shall suspend the operation of the machinery when he/she takes out the contents from the original judgment or the laverr, etc. or performs other similar work, such as maintenance, cleaning, inspection, repair, etc. of the original judgment or the laverr, etc., and where the workers are likely to suffer damage by in contact with the operating part from the opening part of the laverr, such as laverr, he/she shall install a cover or sounding, etc., and where he/she installs a power blocking device, he/she shall install it in a machine for processing, such as cutting, laver, compresseding, cutting, lavering or lavering, etc., and shall install it in

Nevertheless, at around 09:45 on May 22, 2020, the Defendant: (a) had ○○○○○ (Seoul, 25 years old); (b) had his employee Kim○ (hereinafter “Seoul, 25 years old”); (c) had Kim○, an employee of the Defendant, operate the crushing machine to check whether he went into the machinery; and (d) caused problems in the operation of the crushing machine; and (e) had Kim○, an employee of the Defendant check whether he went into the machinery. In such a case, the Defendant suspended the operation of the crushing and check it after the suspension of operation; and (e) installed a cover or a sounding on the opening part of the crushing, so as not to be likely to cause danger by contact with the opening part of the crushing, such as the crushing, and installed a power breaker at a location where the employee could operate without moving his work location; (e) neglected to take measures necessary for the prevention of industrial accidents due to danger; and (e) had the employee, an employee of Kim○, thereby leaving the ○○-man’s body to work and lost its balance.

2) Violation of the Occupational Safety and Health Act

(a) The business owner must install a safe passage to be used by the employee in the workplace or in the workplace and maintain at all times the safe passage.

Nevertheless, on May 25, 2020, the Defendant did not have a safe passage to be used by the employees at the place of business of the above ○○○○ Co., Ltd., a place leading to the cutting of wood crushing process, and a place leading to the cutting of wood crushing process.

B) The business owner must take necessary measures to prevent industrial accidents in the event that he/she works in a place with a high height of not less than 1 meter in an open part of stairs at the risk of falling.

Nevertheless, on May 25, 2020, the Defendant did not install a safe distance on the open side of the traffic stairs leading to the workplace in the second floor of the above ○○○○○○ Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the “instant”).

(c) When a business owner engages in the work using a vehicle system construction machinery or the handling of heavy objects, he/she shall conduct a prior inspection of the relevant work, etc. in order to prevent any danger to workers, and record and keep the results thereof, taking into account the findings of the investigation, prepare a work plan which includes the work methods, etc. and have them conduct the

Nevertheless, on May 25, 2020, the Defendant did not prepare a work plan to handle wood crushing products at the place of business of ○○○○○○○○ Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the “instant ○○○○ Co., Ltd.”).

D) The business owner must install a strong structure with sufficient strength protection measures, such as safety risks, at a place where workers might fall down, as the end or opening of the work plate and passage.

Nevertheless, on May 25, 2020, the Defendant did not take protective measures, such as safety distress, at the second floor of the above corporation ○○○○○○ Co., Ltd., and at the top floor of the stairs leading to the workplace, such as the opening of the stairs leading to the workplace in which workers might fall.

(e) Where a business owner is extremely difficult to install a rail, etc. or he/she is to dismantle a rail temporarily for the need of his/her work, he/she shall install a fall protection net, and where it is impracticable to install a fall protection net, he/she shall take measures necessary to prevent the fall risk, such as having workers wear a safety belt.

Nevertheless, on May 25, 2020, the Defendant did not take measures to prevent the fall risk at the work site of the above ○○○○ Co., Ltd. on the ground that there is a risk of falling in the process of crushing, in the business site of the above ○○ Co., Ltd.

f) In the event that a business owner engages in the assembly of a mobile system, he/she shall comply with the rules, such as the installation of a safe distance at the highest part of the non-system.

Nevertheless, around May 25, 2020, the Defendant did not install safety risks at the highest part of the 1-dong mobile-type movement vision at the place of business of ○○○○ Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the “○○○”).

G) The business owner must install a string, sound, slick, slick, slick and slick, etc. on the parts where workers are likely to face danger, such as the machine's engine, power string, light, flick, blick and chain.

Nevertheless, on May 25, 2020, the Defendant did not install a cover at the place of business of ○○○○○ Co., Ltd., Ltd., on two sides of the parts of the parts of the calculator emission department of the calculator, No. 3 upper end of the calculator work site, No. 2 upper end of the calculator, No. 3 lower end of the calculator, Belgium No. 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, calculator, 2, 1, lower end of the calculator, and 1, 1, lower end of the calculator.

(h) In the event that the business owner stops the operation of a machine in the course of maintenance, cleaning, etc., he shall take necessary protective measures, such as installing locking devices in the mechanical steering system to prevent the operation of the machine by others, managing the keys separately, or installing signboards.

Nevertheless, on May 25, 2020, the Defendant did not take necessary protective measures, such as setting locks at the place of business of ○○○○○○ Co., Ltd., and installing a sign, etc., by installing locks at the operating device of the chill chillor, and managing the key separately or installing it.

(i) If the driver of a vehicle system, such as loading, unloading, transporting, machinery, etc., or the driver of a vehicle system leaves his/her driver's seat, the business owner shall comply with the rules, such as separating the driver's seat from the driver's seat.

Nevertheless, on May 25, 2020, the Defendant did not comply with the matters, such as the separation of the starting key from the driving zone, if the driver who has been in progress in the process of ○○○○○ Co., Ltd. from the place of business of the said Co., Ltd., the Defendant left his driving position.

(j) In order to prevent a reduction in the charging part of any electric machinery, apparatus, or power route from being contacted or approaching by workers’ contact with or approach to the charging part of the electric machinery, apparatus, or power route due to their work or passage, the business owner shall use the charging part completely covered with an inner unit and protect the string part.

Nevertheless, on May 25, 2020, the Defendant, at the place of business of ○○○ Co., Ltd., Ltd., the Defendant, around May 25, 2020, did not protect the Defendant by completely covering the powder charging unit at the place of business of wood crushing process, the product 2-storage charging unit, the wood crushing process 2-storage unit, the wood crushing process 2-storage unit, the product 2-storage unit charging unit, and the 1-wheel unit charging unit with a smoke.

(k) In order to prevent the danger of electric shock by water leakage, the business owner must contact the code and plug-type contact to use the code and plug to prevent the danger of electric shock.

Nevertheless, on May 25, 2020, the Defendant did not enter into a contact within a part-time radius at the place of business of ○○○○○ Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “○○”).

(l) When a business owner intends to install electric machinery and appliances, he/she shall appropriately install them, taking into account the surrounding environment of the place of use, such as wood dust.

Nevertheless, on May 25, 2020, the Defendant, at the place of business of ○○○○ Co., Ltd., the Defendant, at the place of business of said ○○○○ Co., Ltd., installed the electric machinery and equipment of the subdivision of wood scrap, and did not properly install it with respect to

(m) In the case of harmful or dangerous works which require considerable knowledge or training, a business owner shall not allow any person other than those with the qualifications, licenses, experience or skills required for such work to do so.

Nevertheless, around May 25, 2020, the Defendant, at the above ○○○ Co., Ltd.’s place of business, had Kim ○○, a worker who did not have the qualification and license for the use of the digging machines, which is construction machinery, use the digging machines.

B. Defendant ○○○ Co., Ltd.’s crime

1) On May 22, 2020, the Defendant, a representative director of the Defendant’s act on behalf of the Defendant, did not perform his duty of safety and health measures as referred to in the above A-A-1, thereby resulting in the death of Ma○, a worker, by failing to perform his duty of safety and health measures.

2) Around May 25, 2020, the Defendant, a representative director of the Defendant, who committed an act on behalf of the Defendant, did not perform his duty to take measures on safety and health, such as the above-mentioned A-2.

The reason for sentencing on the defendant Park ○

1. The scope of applicable sentences under law: Imprisonment for one month to ten years; and

2. Scope of recommended sentences according to the sentencing criteria;

(a) A violation of the Occupational Safety and Health Act;

【Determination of Punishment】

Violation of the Occupational Safety and Health Act (Type 4)

【Special Convicted Persons】

- Mitigation elements: If there is substantial negligence on the occurrence of an accident even for the victim;

- Aggravations: Where the degree of violation of the duty of care or the duty of safety and health measures is serious;

【Recommendation Area and Scope of Recommendations】

Basic Area, 6 months to 1 year and 6 months

【General Convicts】

- Reduction element: Deposit of equivalent amount, insurance

-Aggravated factor: A criminal record of the same kind not constituting a repeated offense;

(b) Second crime (unestablished crime);

(c) Scope of recommending punishment based on the standards for handling multiple crimes: At least six months of imprisonment (limited to the lower limit of the recommended sentencing range for crimes for which the sentencing criteria are set, since crimes for which the sentencing criteria are set and crimes for which no sentencing criteria are set are concurrent crimes in the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal

3. Determination of sentence: One year of imprisonment; and

4. Specific reasons for sentencing

The defendant recognized his own negligence and is against his own negligence, and even the victim who is the deceased was working without suspending the crushing, and the accident in this case appears to have been caused by considerable negligence. The accident in this case is covered by the Workers' Accident Compensation Insurance (150,000,000,000) for the victim who is the deceased, and the victim's father and mother as each deposit is expected to have made efforts to recover from the damage, such as deposit of the victim's own 25,00,000 won, and the fact that the safety measures have been completed after the occurrence of this case is advantageous.

However, even if the work environment of the workplace of this case was inferior and relatively small, the workplace where the accident of this case occurred is a place of work that separates wastes such as the removal of water and so the process of work is very dangerous. Furthermore, the victim with intellectual disability 3 is engaged in dangerous work, such as organizing the workplace by cutting off strings upon the occurrence of wastes, or disposing of wastes not put in the strings before crushings, and thus, the defendant, who is the business owner, should pay more attention to preventing industrial accidents as stated in the judgment, because the accident of this case occurred due to the failure to take various measures necessary to prevent industrial accidents as stated in the judgment, and the victim's body was damaged by breaking the body while working beyond the balance of the body of the victim during his work, which led to the death of the victim's body, which appears to have been seriously affected by the victim's violation of the duty of safety measures, and the occurrence of the accident of this case is more likely to result in the victim's violation of the duty of safety measures only in the previous 20 years.

In addition to each of the above circumstances, the sentence shall be determined as described in the disposition considering all the sentencing conditions, such as the defendant's age, character and conduct and environment.

Judges Park Sang-sung

1) " May 15, 2020" appears to be a clerical error.