logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 울산지방법원 2016.08.25 2016노218
산업안전보건법위반
Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant

A Imprisonment for 4 months, Defendant C shall be punished by a fine of 3,00,000 won, and Defendant D.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact, the lower court, by misapprehending the legal doctrine, killed the cause of the instant accident by falling down on the floor while moving a bridge-type passage where safety rail is installed only on one side of the work sites where at least 75 luxs have not been secured.

In relation to the premise that the Defendants breached the duty to ensure adequate assistance at work sites and the duty to install safety railing.

The decision was determined.

However, as seen above, the injured person died after falling on the floor while moving a shooting bridge shape.

Since there is no evidence to determine the seal, and the cause of the instant accident was not verified properly, there is no room for the Defendants to recognize the Defendants’ above violation of the duty to take safety measures.

Even if not, according to the relevant provisions, the place where the injured party died during work cannot be seen as a place where the injured party should secure 75 luxs or more, and also, there is a duty to install a rail at both sides of a bridge-type passage installed at the above work place.

shall not be deemed to exist.

Therefore, the court below erred by misunderstanding the facts or misapprehending the legal principles that recognized the Defendants as violating the duty to take safety measures on different premises.

B. The lower court’s improper sentencing (Defendant A: 6 months of imprisonment, 1 year of suspended sentence, 5 million won in case of Defendant C, and 7 million won in case of Defendant D Company) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the misapprehension of the legal principle or mistake of facts

A. The following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court and the evidence duly adopted and examined by the trial court as to whether the victim fells on the floor while moving the bridge-type passage, namely, ① a fixed-type bridge that connects the place of work and the moving passage (Walk W day) to the location immediately following the accident (hereinafter “the instant bridge-type passage”).

arrow