logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주지방법원 2013.12.20 2013노1617
업무상과실치사등
Text

All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The judgment of the court below which convicted all the Defendants of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, is erroneous by misapprehending facts or by misapprehending legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

(1) On July 23, 2012, when the victim I died, Defendant C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Co., Ltd”) received a purchase order for replacing heat treatment facility pipes from G at the time of the instant accident on July 23, 2012 due to the death of the victim I (hereinafter “instant accident”) and did not enter into a contract with G for the purchase order for replacing heat treatment facility pipes. Thus, the instant accident location cannot be deemed as the Defendant Co., Ltd.’s business place.

(2) The Defendants, on July 23, 2012, did not have any employment relationship with H and L which instructs the victim as well as H and L who carried out the pipeline material disposal work (hereinafter “instant work”) from G on July 23, 2012, and therefore, are unreasonable to impose liability on the Defendants for the instant accident.

(3) Even if not, Defendant A’s request for “the delivery of materials” cannot be deemed as the instant work order, and rather, the work period specified in the purchase order sent out from G cannot be deemed as from July 30, 2012.

8. Considering that up to April, the victim, etc. ought to be deemed to have done the instant work at will prior to the scheduled work period without the Defendants’ work instruction.

Furthermore, Defendant A did not know the fact that the instant work was carried out, and considering such circumstances, the Defendants cannot be deemed to have the duty to take safety measures under the Occupational Safety and Health Act, such as the description of the instant facts charged.

B. In consideration of various circumstances on the Defendants in unfair sentencing, each Defendant A of the lower judgment’s imprisonment with labor for one year and suspended execution.

arrow