beta
Text
The judgment below
The part against the Defendants is reversed.
Defendant
B. A fine of KRW 7 million, Defendant corporation.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The judgment of the court below which convicted the Defendants of the violation of the Industrial Safety and Health Act (the death of an employee due to the failure to take safety measures) on the following grounds: the court below erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles as to the Defendants’ respective violation of the Industrial Safety and Health Act (the death of an employee due to the failure to take safety measures) among the facts charged in the instant case, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.
1) The crime under Articles 66-2 and 23(1) of the Industrial Safety and Health Act is established only when a business owner fails to take specific safety measures as stipulated in the “Rules on Industrial Safety” (Supreme Court Decision 2008Do7030 Decided May 28, 2009), and Defendant B violated the provisions of Articles 66-2 and 23(1).
Only the four duty of care alleged by the prosecutor that the phrase “the installation of a studio at least 1.8 meters high” constitutes safety measures stipulated in the said Rules.
B. In light of the circumstances surrounding the instant accident, there is considerable relation between Defendant B’s breach of duty and the instant accident.
It shall not be readily concluded.
2) On October 201, the instant accident is all responsible to the V Co., Ltd. that produced and supplied the automation facilities, including the instant industrial robots, different from the design drawings, and is unreasonable to impose criminal liability on the Defendants who simply received the said automation facilities from the said company.
3) Under the Industrial Safety and Health Act, when workers employed by the contractor and those employed by the contractor work at the same place, the person in charge of general safety and health management has a duty to take measures to prevent industrial accidents. The workers of the court below, who are the workers of Defendant D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant D”), the subcontractor, and the workers of Defendant C Co., Ltd (hereinafter “C”) who are the contractors, have the duty to take measures to prevent industrial accidents.