logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원 의성지원 2020.05.07 2020고단86
업무상실화
Text

Defendants shall be punished by imprisonment without prison labor for six months.

However, each of the above defendants is against the defendants for two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

Defendant

B The operator of the "C" carrying on the business of constructing a panel, etc. is a person engaged in on-site management, and the defendant A is an employee of the above C, who is engaged in the duties of contact work, etc.

1. Defendant A around 10:41 on October 25, 2019, around 10:41, Defendant A engaged in electric contact work that connects pipe to the external wall of the fraternity.

As a fire is likely to occur in the course of the above-mentioned work, the defendant, who is the work site, has a duty of care to check whether there is inflammable materials in the vicinity of the work site, install a fire prevention spreading, place fire extinguishers, etc. to prevent the occurrence of fire.

Nevertheless, the Defendant neglected this and caused public danger by burning out the fire that occurred in the course of the contact work by removing the paper of the outer wall of the fraternity company from the main part of the building, thereby causing approximately KRW 2.1 billion in total of the market price of E-owned buildings, approximately KRW 1,500,000, and KRW 150,000,000 in chickens.

2. Defendant B instructed A to undertake electric melting work that connects a pipe to the outer wall of a mooring company at the same date, time, and place as described in paragraph (1).

As the risk of fire is likely to occur in the course of the above-mentioned work, the defendant, a person in charge of the field management, has a duty of care to check whether there is inflammable materials around the work site and to instruct and supervise the inflammable materials such as the installation of fire extinguishers, the installation of fire extinguishers, etc., and to prevent the occurrence of fire such as fire prevention education.

Nevertheless, the defendant did not properly conduct the above on-site supervision, and had A individually contact work.

arrow