logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.04.20 2016노3914
산업안전보건법위반
Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The sentence of each sentence against the Defendants shall be suspended.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact, Defendant A, including E, performed necessary safety measures, such as checking whether safety equipment, such as safety cap, safety belt, etc., was equipped with workers, and having them wear a gun at any time.

In addition, the installation, etc. of a work board and a safety net is not a duty to be performed by the subcontractor according to the request of the field articles, but a duty to be performed by the Defendants. Since it was impossible for the subcontractor to obtain a prior report from E to confirm the site of this case, it was not aware of the fall risk of the above site, it was not necessary to take such additional safety measures or to take necessary measures without being aware of the risk.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which judged that the defendants violated the Industrial Safety and Health Act is recognized is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendants (a fine of three million won per each) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts

A. The crime of violation of Articles 67(1) and 23(1) of the Industrial Safety and Health Act against a business owner is established only when the business owner orders a business owner to take a dangerous work in safety under Article 23(3) without taking safety measures as prescribed by the rules on the industrial safety standards at his/her workplace operated by him/her, or neglects to take safety measures despite being aware of the fact that the work is being performed without taking such measures, and it is not established only by the fact that the act of violation was performed by the business owner without taking necessary safety measures at the business owner’s workplace (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Do7834, Sept. 9, 2010). However, the business owner’s workplace without taking safety measures at the workplace.

arrow