beta
Text
The judgment below
Of them, the part on Defendant B shall be reversed.
Defendant
B shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3,000,000.
Defendant .
Reasons
Summary of Grounds for Appeal
A. misunderstanding of facts, although the Defendants did not install a defense termination device in cras, and did not comply with the rules on industrial safety standards, such as using a croke chain without indicating the maximum permissible load, the instant accident was caused by an accident in which the Defendants did not instruct the Defendants in order to receive a larger contract fee, and thus, it cannot be deemed that there was causation between the Defendants’ failure to observe the above rules and the occurrence of the instant accident. Thus, the lower court found the Defendants guilty of all the facts charged in this case, and erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
B. Even if there is no unreasonable sentencing, each sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendants (a fine of three million won per fine) is too unreasonable.
Judgment
A. According to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by Defendant B ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by Defendant B, Defendant B was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for one year at the Busan District Court on July 26, 2013 on the grounds of violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (collectively weapon, deadly weapon, etc.), etc., and the judgment became final and conclusive on August 3, 2013. As above, the crime of violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (collectively weapon, deadly weapon, etc.), etc. and the crime of this case, which became final and conclusive, are determined by taking into account equity with the case where the judgment is rendered simultaneously in accordance with the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and thus, the part on Defendant B among the judgment below, cannot be maintained any more.
B. However, Defendant B’s assertion of mistake of mistake or misapprehension of legal principles is still subject to the judgment of this court. As to this, Defendant A’s assertion of mistake of mistake or misapprehension of legal principles are examined together with
We examine the case, the original judgment.