logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원 2013.06.13 2012노3552
산업안전보건법위반
Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. According to the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor’s summary of the grounds for appeal, it can be acknowledged that Defendant B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “B”) and F’s G management concluded a subcontract agreement with respect to female and senior work among female and senior work.

Defendant A, the representative director of the B, had G work without taking adequate preventive or safety measures at the location of the instant accident, and this constitutes Defendant B’s act.

Defendant

B As a business owner, Defendant A may be punished for both Defendants under the joint penal provisions of the Industrial Safety and Health Act.

The judgment of the court below which acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged of this case is erroneous by misapprehending the legal principles.

2. According to the records of judgment and some statements made by N witnesses of the trial party, the court below recognized the basic facts as stated in its reasoning and determined that it is not reasonable to regard the subcontracting contract for the work of “influences and classicals” between Defendant B and F’s G in relation to the work of replacing the two parts of E Water purifiers and the replacement work for women.

Even if an implied subcontract contract was concluded between Defendant B and G, the act of violation is established only when the Defendants knew of the fact that the above work was performed without taking safety measures as prescribed by the former Industrial Safety and Health Act in relation to the input of a house in a house in a house and a house in a house in a house in Korea, or neglecting such measures despite being aware of the fact that the above work was performed without taking such safety measures. However, it is not established solely on the fact that the above dangerous work was performed without taking such safety measures at the workplace in place.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Do12515, Sept. 29, 2011). However, according to the record, the records, it is infinite.

arrow