The judgment below

Of them, the part on Defendant B shall be reversed.

The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal was that the Defendant fulfilled the duty of care necessary to prevent accidents while safely managing the construction site of this case. Even if the Defendant was negligent in not completely removing the trace of the existing crosswalk, the instant accident was caused by the Defendant’s gross negligence, which was committed by the victim, who did not see his cartoon books, while walking away without the victim’s permission, without the consent of the victim, while walking away from the road without the consent of the victim, and does not have a proximate causal link between the Defendant’s occupational negligence and the victim’s injury.

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged in this case is that the Defendant is in charge of the field safety of subway F G G construction work in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government under the jurisdiction of D.

From June 2008, the construction site was installed directly adjacent to the cross-road crossing in Gangnam-gu Seoul, Seoul, with a white sign on the road indicating the king's crosswalk not completely crossed off. At the construction site, there were a truck loaded with the HG beam on the above construction site, and the HG beam was protruding onto the sking's crosswalk mark.

In this case, the construction site is highly likely to cause safety accidents on the road, and the altered crosswalks are able to build the path through the existing crosswalks even if not only pedestrians but also ordinary people, so pedestrians are aware of the accident that they face with the HG beam, so the defendant completely erases the floor indication of the crosswalks, installs the safety signs and safety facilities to attract the attention to pedestrians, and appoints the staff to call attention to the safety.