beta
Text
The part of the judgment of the court below against the defendants is reversed.
Defendant
A 6,000,000 won, Defendant B.
Reasons
1. Although the victims of the summary of the reasons for appeal were scheduled to work at the main water supply center of the work 17, the Defendants failed to properly implement the measures to prevent disasters in the sealed space, unless the Defendants failed to check whether the inside of the work 17 work is shotizing and ventilation inside the mountain.
Although the lower court found the Defendants died due to the Defendants’ failure to take the above measures, it erred by misapprehending the facts in the lower judgment and by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
2. Determination
A. The judgment of the court below was ① The date of the occurrence of the instant accident was the first day of the work conducted at the work site 17th, and it was scheduled to conduct a 7th anniversary of the next day of the instant accident to do so, it was anticipated to conduct the test of removal machinery at the beginning part of the work site of the former water supply pipe at the beginning of the instant accident, and that it will be conducted after the drilling. On the date of the instant accident, the victims were scheduled to participate in the repair work of the new installation section of the water supply pipe located near the Gu at the 19th work site. Accordingly, DE, which inspected the work site environment and prepared a work permit document, inspected the concentration of oxygen concentration at the beginning part of the former water supply pipe at the beginning of the instant accident (from the entrance to about 20 meters from the entrance) and inspected the harmful gas concentration at the entrance of the former gas station at the work site, such as the measurement of harmful gas concentration, such as oxygen concentration at the site.
It appears that only one unit has been operated, and ② Nevertheless, F of the general team leader does not cooperate with the subcontractor, and thus, the victims did not report to the person in charge of safety management, such as Defendant A and AG, without any further safety inspection.