The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.
1. Around 14:00 on June 28, 2014, the Defendant: (a) received a request from D for partial removal works, including toilets division, within the housing located in Nam-gu C, Nam-gu; (b) instructed victims E (58 years of age) and F to remove toilets division using piracy, piracy, etc.
The above toilet division consists of two walls and ceilings, and there was a risk of falling concrete in the ceiling area according to the work method. Since victims and F had little experience in removing buildings, they had the duty of care to thoroughly educate the safety rules such as removing the ceiling area first and moving back to the wall removal, and to prevent the occurrence of safety accidents by providing safety equipment, such as safety mother, which can protect the head part of the building.
Nevertheless, the Defendant did not inform the victim and E of the safety rules, such as the order of work, and did not pay the safety appearance to the victim, and caused the death of low blood shocks caused by dynas by negligence while F prices the wall of the toilet using the dynas in the process of crushing the dynas, while the part of the dynas in which the victim prices the wall by using the dynas.
2. Existence of causation;
A. In order to establish the crime of death by occupational negligence under the Criminal Act, the fact that there is a causal relationship between the defendant's occupational negligence and the victim's death should be proven to the extent that there is a reasonable doubt, and for recognizing the existence of a causal relationship, the fact that the victim would not die if the defendant committed the required act.
(See Supreme Court Decision 2006Do442 Decided July 12, 2007, etc.). B.
As stated in the facts charged of this case, the defendant should not inform the victim of the safety rules.