A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for one year from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

[Basic Facts] Defendant A is a person in charge of safety management at the construction site, who performs the construction work by being awarded a contract with E (State) located in the E (State) chemical manufacturing plant located in the E (State) from E (State) around August 2, 2019, with the trade name “D” in the Sinssisi City B and C and is a person in charge of safety management at the construction site.

【Criminal Facts】

On August 4, 2019, the Defendant, at the construction site of the Rabling 08:04, had the victim G (Nam and 52 years old) perform the dismantling of the ginging equipment.

A business owner shall take necessary measures in order to prevent hazards caused by improper work methods, etc. in the course of excavating, quarrying, unloading, timbering, transporting, operating, dismantling, handling heavy objects, and other work, and in the event of dismantling buildings, etc. or handling heavy objects, in order to prevent hazards to workers, he/she shall conduct a prior investigation into the state of the topography, ground and strata, etc. in the relevant place of work, and record and preserve the results thereof in consideration of the results thereof, prepare a work plan in accordance with the relevant plan and have the floor, etc. of the place of work do so in a safe and clean manner, and take safety measures, such as making the workers wear the floors, etc. so that they do not go beyond the workplace, and put them into a tank to prevent danger, such as products, materials, and absence, etc.

Nevertheless, the Defendant neglected the above duty of care and did not prepare a work plan through prior investigation, such as whether the pentice’s V was properly controlled prior to the pertinent work, and other materials and absences when dismantling the pentices. On August 3, 2019, the Defendant neglected to perform the duty of care, and did not go beyond the workplace even if the pentice was leaked to the floor of the workplace due to a sudden spread of hydrotensions in the above site, thereby lowering the floor of the workplace.