2017Do4957 A. Occupational failure, etc.

B. Violation of the Occupational Safety and Health Act

1.(a) A

2.(a) B

3.2.(b) C

Prosecutor (Defendants)

Attorney Kim Jong-soo and Park Jong-ho (for all the defendants),

Gwangju District Court Decision 2016No187 Decided March 29, 2017

June 13, 2019

All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the ground of appeal on occupational death

The court below affirmed the judgment of the first instance court which acquitted the defendant A and B of the charges of this case on the ground that it is not sufficient to recognize that the cleaning work was not performed, in light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the records: (i) the pressure valve in which the accident occurred was caused, namely, (ii) there was no problem in the test report; (iii) Qudo construction supervision was not found in the pressure valve; (iii) the construction responsibility of the entire oxygen supply facilities, including the pressure valve, is in the stock company F; and (iv) the state and water appraisal report did not contain any sudden manipulation of the valve due to the accident; (iv) the victims were not aware of the sudden manipulation of the valve at the time of the accident; and (iii) the victims stated that the victim 1 was in a sun-dried operation of the valve before 20 minutes of the accident; and (iv) the victims stated that it was a sudden operation of the valve in the major safety and health matters.

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court did not err in its judgment by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on occupational negligence, considerable over-related

2. As to the ground of appeal on violation of the Occupational Safety and Health Act

A business owner’s violation of Articles 66-2 and 23(1) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act against a business owner is established only when the business owner instructs work without taking safety measures prescribed by the Rules concerning dangerous work prescribed in Article 23(1) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act at his/her place of business operated by him/her, or neglecting such measures despite being aware of the fact that the above work is being performed without taking such measures, and only the fact that the above dangerous work was performed without taking necessary safety measures at the place of business of the business owner (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Do7834, Sept. 9, 2010).

The court below is just in maintaining the judgment of the court of first instance which acquitted Defendant A of the violation of the Occupational Safety and Health Act among the facts charged on the ground that Defendant A did not recognize the explosion of this case at all. Contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the court below did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal principles

3. Conclusion

All appeals are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Supreme Court Decision 200

Justices Park Sang-ok

Justices Noh Jeong-hee

Justices Kim Jae-hwan in charge