Defendant 1 and 3

Maternity rules

Law Firm Taeyang (Apon for all the defendants) et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Defendant 1 shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,000,00, Defendant 2, and Defendant 3 by a fine of KRW 3,000,000.

When Defendant 1 and 2 fail to pay each of the above fines, each of the above Defendants shall be confined in a workhouse for a period calculated by converting 50,000 won into one day.

To order the Defendants to pay an amount equivalent to the above fines.

Defendant 1 is a person who is engaged in the business of leasing equipment with the trade name of “Nonindicted Co. 1”, and Defendant 2 is the representative director of Defendant 3 Co., Ltd. who is in charge of the safety, maintenance, and management of workers belonging to the above company, and Defendant 3 Co., Ltd. is a corporation established for the purpose of soil construction business, etc., and is a business owner who performs reinforced concrete construction and soil construction work under contract among “construction work of building site for port-to-port site and construction work.”

1. Defendant 1

A person who lends dangerous machinery, etc. to another person shall deliver to the lessee a signature stating the capacity of the relevant machinery, etc., details of protective measures against the relevant machinery, etc., characteristics of the relevant machinery, etc. and directions for the use thereof, details of repair, repair and use of the relevant machinery, etc.

Around March 15, 2007, the Defendant lent the Daegu (Motor Vehicle Number omitted) Back Ba to Defendant 3 Co., Ltd., which is a dangerous machine, and did not deliver a document stating the above matters.

2. Defendant 2

When a business owner carries out work using construction machinery of a vehicle system, he/she shall prepare in advance a work plan containing the types, capabilities, operational routes and working methods of the construction machinery of the vehicle system, conduct the work in accordance with such plan, and use it for any purpose other than the main use of the relevant

As above, in the work plan for Daegu (vehicle number omitted), which he leased from Defendant 1, it was prohibited from using the above but not for any purpose other than the excavation work, the main purpose of which is the excavation, as well as in the case where the above digging machine is used for the excavation work, other than the excavation work, the main purpose of which is the excavation work, it is necessary to remove and settle the cacker's cacker again in the process. Therefore, there is a risk that the cacker might be left down in the process.

Nevertheless, on October 23, 2007, the Defendant did not take any measures to prevent the above danger, and even at the construction site of the “port site development project,” the construction site of the “port site development project,” and Nonindicted 2, the operator of the racker, who used the racker’s racker’s kacker’s kacker’s kacker’s kacker’s kacker’s kacker’s kacker’s kacker’s kacker’s kacker’s kacker’s kacker’s kacker’s kacker’s kacker’s kacker’s kacker’s kacker’s kacker, etc., leading Nonindicted 3 to the death of Nonindicted 3.

3. Defendant 3 Company

Defendant 2, the representative of the Defendant, committed the same offense as that of the preceding paragraph at the time and place mentioned in the preceding paragraph.

1. Each police interrogation protocol against the defendant 1 and 2;

1. The police interrogation protocol regarding Nonindicted 5

1. Statement of each police statement on Nonindicted 2, 6, and 7

1. A report on occurrence of each serious accident (Preparation of Nonindicted Co. 4 and preparation of the head of the port of port of Daegu Regional Labor Office);

1. Report on the results of serious disaster investigation prepared by the president of the Korea Occupational Safety and Health Agency and the Superintendent of the Korea Occupational Safety and Health Agency;

1. Defendants and defense counsel’s assertion

A. Judgment on Defendant 1’s assertion

Defendant 1 and defense counsel asserted that the violation of Article 33(2) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act, Article 27(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and Article 49(1) of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act, like general criminal cases, is established only when a business owner violated the Occupational Safety and Health Act and brought about the result of “Death” due to the violation of the relevant provisions. The accident in this case does not constitute a crime regardless of the violation of the relevant Acts because there is no causal relationship with the above death because the accident in this case was not caused due to the failure of equipment, or even if not, it does not constitute a crime regardless of the absence of a causal relationship with the above death, or Defendant 1, a user of equipment, was not simply lent equipment, and it was dispatched by Nonindicted 2 with the above provision, and thus, it is not effective or unnecessary to exempt the above rental business operator from punishment. Thus, the above assertion that Defendant 1 did not require the above rental business operator to dispatch equipment and supervision as well as the above instruction and supervision of the operator of equipment, is not only for the reason to issue the above crime.

B. Determination on the assertion by Defendant 2 and Defendant 3

(1) The above Defendants and defense counsel asserted that the cause of the instant accident was only caused by Non-Indicted 2’s gross negligence, which is the driver, and that it was not caused by non-execution of safety measures such as informing the driver of the preparation of their work plan and the content of the work plan, or by the use of the vehicle’s construction machinery for any purpose other than the main purpose.

(2) Determination

(A) Under Article 23(1) of the Industrial Safety and Health Act, a business owner shall take necessary measures to prevent risks that may arise in the course of carrying out a business, such as any danger caused by machinery, apparatus, and other equipment (Article 23(1)1). Article 23(4) of the same Act provides that safety measures to be taken by a business owner under the said Article shall be prescribed by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Labor. The rules on industrial safety standards established thereunder (hereinafter referred to as the “Rules”) stipulates that a business owner shall confirm in advance necessary matters, such as placement and education of workers, work methods, protective devices, etc., and shall take necessary measures to prevent risks when the commencement of the operation of machinery is likely to cause danger to workers. When the operation of machinery starts, he/she shall determine a certain signal method and signals to the relevant workers and give them to the relevant workers (Article 34(1) and (2) of the Rules).

B. However, according to the above evidence, the excavated machine in this case should be used for earth work, such as excavation work, and the accident in this case occurred in the course of loading and unloading of the excavated machine separately, using the excavated machine in this case for the excavation work again. However, Defendant 2 only carried out work plans related to the excavation work, and Defendant 2 did not set up work plans on the ground that the excavation work in this case is simple and time does not require much time. Meanwhile, Nonindicted 2, at the time of using the excavated machine, performed excavation work without undergoing any education from Defendant 2 or Defendant company, and it can be recognized that the working group leader at the time of the accident in this case, who used the excavated machine, did not carry out the excavation work.

C. According to the above facts, it is reasonable to view that the act of loading and unloading steel products using the instant excavated machine is likely to pose a risk to workers, and it is not permitted to use it for any purpose other than the main purpose, and the act of installing a burner for the excavation work again after the loading and unloading work is in a series of processes, and the act of installing a burner for the excavation work is in a series of processes, and it is hard to find a job even though the chief executive officer of the signal number working group has to not set the place until the completion of the installation of the above burner. Meanwhile, it is reasonable to view that the Defendant’s path knew or could have known the fact that the instant work was being performed without taking sufficient safety measures as prescribed by the above regulations at the construction site of this case. Ultimately, it is reasonable to view that the Defendants and the defense counsel violated the duty to take measures for the prevention of industrial accidents under Article 23(1) of the Industrial Safety and Health Act. Accordingly, the assertion of the Defendants and the defense counsel is not accepted under different premise.

1. Article relevant to the facts constituting an offense and the selection of punishment;

Defendant 2: Article 67-2 subparag. 1 and Article 33(2) of the Industrial Safety and Health Act; selection of fines;

Defendant 2: Articles 66-2 and 23(1)1 of the Industrial Safety and Health Act; selection of fines;

Defendant 3 Stock Company; Articles 66-2, 23(1)1, and 71 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act

1. Detention in a workhouse (Defendant 1, 2);

Articles 70 and 69(2) of the Criminal Act

1. Ad hoc payment order:

Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.

Judges Cho Jong-chul