The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.

1. The Defendant in the facts charged in this case is the representative of D Co., Ltd. in Changwon-si, Changwon-si, and the victim E is the one-time electric worker of the above company.

The Defendant, from March 18, 2015 to April 10, 2015, received orders from G Co., Ltd. F in the Hannam-gun F, and received orders to perform the installation and lighting of facilities and lighting of G Co., Ltd.

In this case, the defendant had a technician of electrical construction thoroughly perform the safety management of electrical construction, while the defendant has a duty of care to prevent the shock accident of the victim by providing the user with sufficient safety equipment, such as the instructions on the cutting-out of electrical construction prior to the execution, safety appearance, safety level, lock, etc., and so on.

Nevertheless, on April 3, 2015, the Defendant instructed the victim without any qualifications related to electrical construction without any appropriate safety management of a technician to replace the above construction-related outdoor transformation equipment, etc., and ordered the victim to “electricly off and off work..............” On the other hand, the Defendant instructed the victim to directly carry out plastic sealing after replacing the changed line that was received from the Korean Electric Power Corporation without paying sufficient safety equipment. At around 13:50 on the same day, the Defendant instructed the victim to directly carry out the work at a height of approximately 7 meters from the outdoor transformation equipment (electric telegrams) at a height of approximately 3 meters from the above construction site without taking any electric measures, and then cut off the relevant seal and fall down to the change pressure gauge below 3 meters from the construction site, thereby causing injury to approximately 8 weeks, such as video (e.g., heart 25%, 31%, 31%, and 5%, etc.) requiring treatment.

2. Determination

A. Before the instant electric shock accident, the Defendant did not instruct the victim to “slick down and work ......” before the instant electric shock accident, and fulfilled his duty of care to prevent electric shock accidents by keeping safety equipment necessary for the said work.

The argument is asserted.

B. The main text of the instant case.