2017 Highest 3731,2017 Highest 4415(Joint). Occupational Death, etc.

(b) A certified evidence alteration teacher;

C. Violation of the Occupational Safety and Health Act

(d) Forgery of private documents;

(e) Events of a falsified investigation document;

(f) Evidence alteration;

1.(a) A

2.(a) B

3.(c)(d) C

4.C. D

5.(c)(E);

6.(a)F

7.(a) G.

8. A. (d) E. H

9.(a)I

10.(a)(b)The J

11.(a) K

12.b. L

13.(a) M

14.(a)N

15.f. this;

16.c. P Co., Ltd.

Kim Dong-dong (Public Prosecution), the best police officer, the police officer in charge, the police officer in charge, and the police officer in charge (public trial).

Law Firm X (Defendant A, B, E, F, I, J, K, L, M, N,O, P

For purposes of this section:

Y. (For Defendant C and Corporation D)

Law Firm Z (for the defendant G and H)

May 3, 2018

1. Defendant A

Defendant shall be punished by imprisonment without prison labor for a period of one year and two months.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for three years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive. Of the charges against the defendant, the defendant shall be acquitted.

2. Defendant B

Defendant shall be punished by imprisonment without prison labor for a period of one year and two months.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for 3 years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for 3 years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 10 million.

In order to order the provisional payment of an amount equivalent to the above fine.

5. Defendant E

Defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for a period of one year and six months and by a fine of five million won. If the Defendant fails to pay the above fine, the Defendant shall be confined in the workhouse for the period converted by one day.

However, the execution of the above imprisonment shall be suspended for three years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive. To order the accused to provide community service for 160 hours.

In order to order the provisional payment of an amount equivalent to the above fine.

6. The defendant

Defendant shall be punished by imprisonment without prison labor for one year.

However, the execution of the above punishment is suspended for a period of two years from the date when this judgment became final and conclusive. The order of the defendant to provide community service for 80 hours and attend the class for prevention of industrial accidents for 40 hours.7. Defendant G. Defendant G is punished by imprisonment without prison labor for a year.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive. To order the accused to provide community service for 80 hours.

8. Defendant H

Defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of one year and two months.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for three years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive. To order the accused to provide community service for 120 hours.

19. Defendant I

Defendant shall be punished by imprisonment without prison labor for ten months.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for a period of two years from the date when this judgment became final and conclusive.

Defendant shall be punished by imprisonment without prison labor for one year.

However, the execution of the above punishment is suspended for a period of two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive. To order the defendant to provide community service for 80 hours and attend the class for preventing industrial accidents for 40 hours. Of the facts charged against the defendant, the defendant shall be acquitted.

11. Defendant K

Defendant shall be punished by imprisonment without prison labor for one year.

However, the execution of the above punishment is suspended for a period of two years from the date when this judgment became final and conclusive. The defendant ordered the defendant to provide community service for 80 hours and attend the lecture for preventing industrial accidents for 40 hours.

The defendant shall be innocent.

13. The defendant M shall be punished by a fine of up to five million won. If the defendant does not pay the above fine, the defendant shall be confined in the workhouse for the period calculated by converting one hundred thousand won into one day.

In order to order the provisional payment of an amount equivalent to the above fine.

14. Defendant N

A defendant shall be punished by a fine of five million won. If the defendant does not pay the above fine, the defendant shall be confined in a workhouse for a period of one hundred thousand won converted into one day.

In order to order the provisional payment of an amount equivalent to the above fine.

15. Defendant’s objection

The defendant shall be innocent.

16. Defendant P Co., Ltd

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of 20 million won.

In order to order the provisional payment of an amount equivalent to the above fine.

Criminal History (Status of the Defendant)

Defendant E is the chief of the shipbuilding division of Jinhae Shipbuilding Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “EE”) and the chief of the department in general charge of safety and health engaged in activities for PP Co., Ltd. concerning the safety and health of workers belonging to the captain and workers of the contractor; Defendant K is the chief director and the safety and health manager in charge of safety and health of SPE; Defendant J is the chief of the safety and health team; Defendant J is the safety and health manager in charge of the follow-up production; Defendant F is the safety manager in the safety and health team; Defendant F is the field manager in the safety and health team; Defendant I is the field safety manager in the safety and health team; Defendant A is the team manager in the field of the safety and health team; Defendant A is the head office and painting team manager of the PM team; Defendant B is the chief of the production support team; Defendant QE and the chief of the production support team in the field of production; Defendant QE and the senior supervisor in general charge of safety and health of the PPE.

[The current status of the victim] The victim’s massive 00 (year 46), the victim’s 00 (year 54), the victim Kim 00 (year 53), and the victim’s stuffed 00 (year 54) are employees affiliated with D Co., Ltd. (year 34). [B] EEX entered into a basic subcontract agreement with Q&K operated by Defendant H on December 31, 2016, and Q Q was registered as a special funeral construction subcontractor, and the individual contract was entered into, if any, the volume of construction work.

After that, on July 18, 2017, EXE entered into an individual contract with 33,442,80 won in construction cost, and from July 20, 2017 to September 30, 2017, with 174,87,000 fire-fighting tanks, which are built in Q&E and C.O. tank 1585 in ships, and were built in a shipbuilding yard, for the purpose of re-subcontracting such dangerous works at the 174,875,40, and 15,000-15,000,000-15,000-15,000,000,000 construction cost for each of which are fire-fighting tanks, and Q&E-15,000,000 square meters in width and 3,000,000 square meters in width and 17,000,0000).

【Criminal Facts】

1. Defendants A, B, C, Defendant E, Defendant F, Defendant G, Defendant H, Defendant J, Defendant J, Defendant K, Defendant M, Defendant M, and Defendant N’s occupational negligence

A. Breach of duty of due care by Defendant E in the course of shipbuilding;

The Defendant, as the captain of the shipbuilding yard and the general manager in charge of safety and health, was in charge of the duties of checking the use of harmful and dangerous machinery, apparatus, equipment, etc. in the shipbuilding yard, formulating an industrial accident prevention plan, checking the safety and health education of workers, checking the matters concerning the inspection and improvement of working environment, such as working environment measurement, and identifying the matters concerning the establishment of industrial accident prevention measures and the measures for preventing harmful and dangerous harm of workers in the shipbuilding yard.

On the other hand, the Defendant was in charge of the affairs related to the 30-year shipbuilding yard. Around May 1, 2015, the Defendant was employed in the EXE shipbuilding and worked as the captain from March 2016, and received a report on the progress of the vessel under construction through the e-mail and mobile phone production conference every week, and received reports on the progress of the vessel under construction through the e-mail and mobile phone production conference, and received reports on the occurrence of accidents and measures. On August 7, 2017, the Defendant was in charge of the e-mail and the e-mail and mobile phone, and received reports on the occurrence of accidents and measures taken from A, who is the head of the painting team. In this regard, the Defendant was in charge of the safety and health team at the production conference, etc., and received reports on the occurrence of safety accidents and measures taken from the safety and health team at each production conference, etc., and each team leader, etc. in charge of safety and health supervision.

Therefore, the Defendant: (a) in the case of the dangerous work in which the employees of D Co., Ltd. carry out painting by spraying papers containing inflammable substances in a sealed space, using a press system; (b) the Defendant shall take measures such as ventilation and removal of air ventilation in order to prevent explosion or fire by means of inflammable steam, gas, or dust in a place where there is inflammable steam or inflammable gas; and (c) when the Defendant carried out the work of washing, painting, etc. using a press system in an enclosed space with a flammable, it shall take measures to completely sealed by using the string or de factoing material; and (d) the matters concerning the inspection and improvement of working environment, such as measuring working environment, should be checked; (e) the establishment of measures to prevent industrial accidents; (e) ascertain whether training is conducted; and (e) whether training is performed in accordance with the regulations on workers’ harmful and safety and health; and (e) whether the process of granting permission for dangerous work, such as permission for dangerous work, such as special design work, should be observed.

Nevertheless, the Defendant is negligent in performing his duties by neglecting the duty of care to manage and supervise employees belonging to D Co., Ltd., on whether sufficient ventilation measures are taken in the RO tank while carrying out painting work on the RO tank, and whether explosions etc. normally maintain the preventive performance, as well as on whether the safety rules inside the EEE shipbuilding yard, such as safety and health management regulations, risk work permission guidelines, and smuggling space work guidelines, etc. are carried out safely while complying with the rules, and by allowing employees belonging to D Co., Ltd. to carry out painting work in an enclosed space, which is an sealed space, in danger of fire and explosion due to the accumulation of inflammable gas, etc.

B. Violation of occupational duty of care by Defendant K, Defendant F, and Defendant I-related safety and health environment team

1) Defendant K

The Defendant, as the chief director of P Co., Ltd. and the chief director of safety and health officer in charge of safety quality, assisted the safety and health affairs of E in the ship manager, who is in charge of safety and health affairs of E in the ship manager in charge of safety and health affairs of E, and takes overall charge of the operation and management of three teams related to safety and health quality, including the safety and health environment team in charge of the safety and health environment of E X-ray shipbuilding, directed and supervises the safety and health affairs of the safety and health environment team, and confirmed the safety

In 28 years, the Defendant was in charge of the work related to the ship's quantity shipbuilding center, confirmed the progress of the work of the ship under construction through the production conference, etc. every week, received reports on the occurrence of safety accidents and measures, etc. from the Safety and Health Environmental Team, and around August 7, 2017, the Defendant received reports on the occurrence of safety accidents and measures, etc. from the Safety and Health Environmental Team and the production conference, etc., and directed and supervised whether safety and health duties are appropriately performed through each team leader, etc. of the safety quality part including the Safety and Health Environment Team.

Therefore, by managing and supervising the safety and health environment team, the Defendant had a duty of care to remove harmful and dangerous elements and maintain a safe working environment by checking whether any paint, etc. containing inflammable substances is complied with in accordance with the guidelines for permission for dangerous work, sealed space work guidelines, etc. in the case of dangerous work in which employees belonging to the Co., Ltd. carry out painting work using a frame, which is a sealed space, and by checking and inspecting whether there is sufficient ventilation to prevent fire and explosion caused by inflammable gas, etc. during painting work, and whether the explosion, etc. has functioned properly during painting work, etc., and to maintain a safe working environment.

Nevertheless, the Defendant is obliged to manage and supervise the safety and health environment team in order to check and observe risk work procedures, on the ground that: (a) whether the work is being carried out while in the process of painting, whether workers are engaged in conditioning air conditioners, and whether the explosion-proofs, etc. are maintained; and (b) there is a case in which the seal workers put their seals in order to improve the working speed; and (c) there is a case in which inflammable gas in the sealed space is increased by the addition of the seal work workers without complying with risk work procedures; and (d) the Defendant is negligent in performing painting work in the course of performing duties, which is a sealed space, which is a sealed space where a fire or explosion is dangerous due to the accumulation of inflammable gas, etc., by neglecting such duty of care.

2) Defendant F

The Defendant, as the chief of the safety and health environment team of PP corporation, the safety manager of E X-ray shipbuilding and the safety and health manager of E-ray shipbuilding, assist the captain of E in technical matters among the safety management affairs of E, who is the general person in charge of safety and health management of E-ray shipbuilding, was in charge of duties to provide advice and guidance on technical matters, to conduct safety education, to conduct safety education by inspecting harmful or dangerous machinery, apparatus, equipment, etc., to review the potential risks in work, to direct and supervise the approval of risk work and the inspection of workplace of safety and health team site safety personnel, to directly check the site of work, to examine the implementation of the risk work at the time of the risk work, and to instruct the implementation of sufficient safety measures to be suspended in the event of the dangerous work conducted while inappropriate measures have been taken.

Since the Defendant had performed duties related to safety and health at P Co., Ltd.’s Safety and Health Team for about 21 years, the Defendant was well aware of the fact that there was a risk of explosion when gas and flammable source contact with gas in the state of not being fully ventilated in the tank work, and in particular, the Defendant was also aware that, in spite of the risk of explosion in the painting work, the workers were combining the air cooling function for the convenience of the work, around August 7, 2017, prior to the explosion accident in the instant case, there was a qualitative accident due to lack of ventilation, and the Defendant, a safety manager of EEM, was reported the instant case, and thus, the possibility of the explosion in the process of maintaining the inner shock performance of the tank, such as the damage of the tank, was sufficiently known.

Therefore, the Defendant has a duty of care to manage and supervise whether the TRO tank painting work, which is a sealed space, fully ventilation, and to check whether the rackers installed in the TRO tank maintain the preventive performance, and to check whether the dangerous work procedures are complied with in accordance with the risk work permission guidelines, sealed space work guidelines, etc. in the course of painting work, and to increase the generation of inflammable gas in the sealed space, unlike the contents of the dangerous work permit, if a seal work operator is additionally put in, there are cases where a seal work operator increases the generation of inflammable gas in the sealed space.

Nevertheless, the Defendant is negligent in performing duties, such as checking whether the work is being carried out in a sealed tank, or even though he knows that workers are tampers with cooling function during the painting work, he did not take measures to improve it, etc., with the knowledge that the workers are tampers, and managing and supervising whether the explosion-preventive function is maintained, whether the dangerous work process or the number of workers is observed according to the dangerous work permit, etc., but neglecting such duty of care, thereby having the employees belonging to D, as well as having the employees belonging to D, perform painting work in the rO tank, which is a sealed space with a risk of fire and explosion due to the accumulation of inflammable gas, etc.

3) Defendant I

The Defendant is a field safety manager of P Co., Ltd., who is in charge of on-site inspections related to risk work, and directly checks the site at the time of application for risk work, such as special painting work, and confirms whether the matters to be observed are being implemented at the time of risk work, and approves or suspend risk work at the site, check the site continuously after approval for risk work, check the site, and take charge of safety measures, such as suspending work where the risk factor is discovered.

Since the Defendant has been working for about 17 years as field safety personnel at the Safety and Health Team of P Co., Ltd., the Defendant was well aware of the risk of explosion in the event that there is a large amount of inflammable gas in the process of painting work, and that there is a large amount of inflammable gas in the process of painting work, and that there is a risk of explosion in the situation where there is no sufficient ventilation in the process of painting work in the tank, and in particular, in the case of painting work, the employees are combining the workers with a cooling function for the convenience of the work, notwithstanding the risk of explosion, in spite of the danger of explosion, there was also awareness that the explosion installed inside the tank in the course of painting work is destroyed by physical shock or aging.

Therefore, the Defendant confirmed whether the TRO tank painting work, which is a sealed space, has sufficient ventilation, and checked whether the explosions, etc. installed in the TRO tank maintain the explosion-preventive performance, and there are cases where the risk work procedures are complied with in accordance with the risk work permission guidelines, sealed space work guidelines, etc. in the course of painting work, and the occurrence of inflammable gas in the sealed space is increased by adding the seal work operator differently from the contents of the risk work permit. Therefore, the Defendant has a duty of care to supervise the number of workers or whether the work is being conducted while complying with the work procedure according to the risk work permit.

Nevertheless, the Defendant neglected to check the site of the RO tank work, which is an sealed space, and neglected to check whether the work is being carried out while carrying out the painting work, whether the work is being carried out, whether the fire-proof light is damaged and the explosion-preventive performance is maintained, and the employees were aware that the work is being carried out with air conditioners during the painting work, and did not take any measures to check, manage, and supervise whether the number of workers or the work procedures are complied with in accordance with the dangerous work permit. However, the Defendant neglected to perform such duty of care and caused negligence in the course of performing painting work in the RO tank, which is an sealed space, where the risk of fire and explosion is dangerous due to the accumulation of gas to its employees, etc.

C. Violation of duty of care by Defendant J, Defendant A, and Defendant M-related painting teams

1) Defendant J

The Defendant, as a director in charge of the follow-up production of SSS ship and a person in charge of safety and health in charge of the follow-up production of the ship, was in charge of the duties of checking matters concerning the operation, management, and supervision of five teams included in the follow-up production, including the painting team having jurisdiction over the painting work of the instant RO tank.

On the other hand, the defendant worked for about 20 years at the post-production department in the process management, and has experience as the seal team leader, and the progress of the construction of the vessel during each week at the meeting and every week-day production conference, and confirmed the progress of the construction of the vessel through e-mail and mobile phone, etc., and received reports on the night and weekend work status, the occurrence of safety accidents and measures, etc. through e-mail and mobile phones. On August 7, 2017, the defendant received reports from the seal team leader A about the quality-related accidents due to the poor ventilation from the ES team at the production conference, etc., and received reports on the occurrence of safety accidents and measures against them from the ES team, and led and supervised whether safety and health duties are properly performed through each team leader, etc. of the post-production production department including the seal team.

Therefore, in the case of dangerous work, the Defendant: (a) supervised the employees of D Co., Ltd. whether safety education to comply with dangerous work procedures is conducted on a regular basis; and (b) the safety and health management regulations, risk work permission guidelines, smuggling space work guidelines, C.O.T.K installation of LINE for work, and HOSE standard specifications, enacted by EOSE shipbuilding to prevent fire and explosion caused by inflammable gases.

In order to confirm whether or not they become the above C.O.TK work, the installation of LINE and the installation of four air pande lines and two dampers in accordance with the HOSE reorganization standard, and sufficient ventilation is made by installing them, and the inspection of whether dampers are normally operated and measures to prevent harm are taken, and the seal team has a duty of care to manage and supervise the seal team so that it can be carried out safely.

Nevertheless, around August 20, 2017, the Defendant: (a) required to install a ventilation system so that sufficient ventilation can be performed at the time of carrying out a special design of the RO tank; (b) did not take measures, such as removing or improving the above harmful and dangerous elements, despite being aware of the fact that D workers belonging to the Co., Ltd. are engaged in the painting work, and that sufficient ventilation is not performed while carrying out the painting work; and (c) neglected to perform the duty of care to manage and supervise the painting team and painting workers as to whether safety education or risk work procedures are complied with; and (d) negligence was committed on the part of the employees belonging to the Co., Ltd., such as having them carry out painting work in the RO tank, which is an sealed space where risk of fire, explosion, etc. is dangerous due to the accumulation of inflammable gas, etc.

2) Defendant A

The Defendant, as the team leader, the manager, and the person in charge of safety and health management of the EXE-book, was in charge of managing and supervising the process and operation of the painting team and painting work, identifying and improving the harmful and dangerous factors of the painting work and the methods of improper work, and directing and supervising the safety and health affairs of the painting team.

On the other hand, the defendant was in charge of the 15-year seal-related work, and around August 7, 2017, the quality-related accident occurred due to lack of ventilation and reported it to J and Shipmaster E, etc., which is the top manager. After the accident investigation report was prepared about the occurrence of safety accidents and measures taken after the safety and health environmental team, and the direction and supervision was made as to whether the approval of dangerous work permit is properly made in relation to the special design work of the RO tank.

Therefore, the Defendant: (a) provided D workers under its jurisdiction with materials containing inflammable substances in the KR tank, a sealed space space, with the name of dangerous substances and hazardous substances to be used for the work and their hazards and risks; (b) safety and health directions for the work harmful or dangerous to safety and health; (c) safety and health guidelines for the work harmful or dangerous to the safety and health; and (d) provided employees with safety education to comply with the substance safety and health guidelines and risk procedures; and (d) regularly provided employees with safety education to comply with the safety and health regulations established by EOS shipbuilding to prevent fire and explosion due to inflammable gases; (d) safety and health management regulations established by EOS shipbuilding; (e) the place of permission for work; (e) the installation of LINE for C.O.K works; and (e) the installation of HOS standards to supervise the environment and state of danger; and (e) the installation of HE guidelines and approval for the installation of HE guidelines, as prescribed by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Health and Welfare.

Nevertheless, around August 20, 2017, the Defendant did not provide data on safety and health of workers belonging to D Co., Ltd. who are engaged in painting work in S 1585 of the shipbuilding yard, or manage and supervise the employees belonging to D Co., Ltd. to provide material safety information, neglected the employees to provide safety education regarding the risk and cautions of painting work, risk work process, compliance with dangerous work procedures, etc., and installed ventilation equipment to ensure that sufficient ventilation is performed at the time of carrying out the RO special map work. However, the Defendant installed only two pan panty dle and damp dle, and the employees belonging D Co., Ltd. did not take measures, such as removing or improving the above harmful and dangerous elements, despite being aware of the fact that the employees belonging to D Co., Ltd. did not have sufficient ventilation while carrying out the painting work, and the employees in charge of obtaining approval from D Co., Ltd. did not comply with the aforementioned work regulations, despite having notified M Co., Ltd.’s password and employees in charge of obtaining approval for their password work permit.

Along with the duty of care to manage and supervise the painting team and painting workers to comply with safety management regulations, there is negligence in the course of business, such as having the employees belonging to D Co., Ltd. conduct painting work on an enclosed space, which is dangerous to fire and explosion due to the accumulation of inflammable gas, etc.

3) Defendant M

The Defendant, as an production manager at the work site of the SE X-book, assisted A, who is the head of the painting team, was in charge of managing the special painting of the painting team, identified compliance with the rules on work safety, securing the safety of harmful and dangerous work, and managing the safety at the site of safety-related persons, and confirmed the suitability of the used machinery, apparatus, and safety ideal.

On the other hand, since 2008, the Defendant, as the director of the painting team, has been in charge of affairs related to painting work in the painting team, has been in charge of the duties of first approving the dangerous work permit applied by the subcontractor in accordance with the risk work permission procedure.

Therefore, the Defendant: (a) confirmed whether the risk work procedures are complied with as stipulated in the safety and health management regulations, risk work permission guidelines, smuggling space work guidelines, C.O.T. installation and HOSE reorganization guidelines established by E.S. Shipbuilding in order to prevent fire and explosion caused by gas influoration, etc., of the employees belonging to D Co., Ltd., Ltd., in the course of paintinging in a sealed space, the Defendant had the obligation to check the risk work environment and condition; (b) check the construction of LINE for the above C.O.TK work and to install four air ventilation lines and two air conditioners in the HOSE standard; and (c) control and supervise them so that sufficient ventilation can be carried out by checking the license for the dangerous work applied by the subcontractor and to give due attention to the safety of the work permit.

Nevertheless, around August 20, 2017, the Defendant neglected to provide safety education to the employees belonging to D Co., Ltd. who carry out painting work in S. S. S. AE Shipbuilding S. S. 1585 vessel tanks to the employees of D Co., Ltd., who failed to comply with the rules on work permits prior to the work permits by notifying the employees of their ID and password, and failed to install only two air ventilaters and one air ventilaters to ensure that sufficient ventilation can be carried out at the time of carrying out the work, but at the time of carrying out the painting, the Defendant did not take measures such as removing or improving the harmful and dangerous elements, despite being aware of the fact that D workers belonging to D, etc. do not put the seals and password, and failed to observe the safety rules of work permits prior to the work permits, and neglected to observe the safety rules of work permits prior to the work permits due to fire and explosion, etc., and at the time of carrying out the work with the duty of care to supervise the employees of D Co., Ltd.

D. Breach of duty of care by Defendant B and Defendant N-related production support team

1) Defendant B

The Defendant, as the head of the production support team and the safety and health manager of the EXE shipbuilding team, was in charge of the installation, management, maintenance, and repair work of electricity, gas, etc. necessary at the site in the shipbuilding yard, and was in charge of the duties of identifying and improving risk factors and incomplete work methods, and directing and supervising the safety and health work of the production support team.

한편, 에스티엑스 조선소는 2015. 9. 1.경부터 신OO이 운영하는 주식회사 엔지 니어링과 하도급 기본거래계약을 체결하고 ♤엔지니어링을 전기 부분 설치, 유지, 보수협력업체로 등록하였으며, 2016. 12. 31.경 계약을 갱신하면서 2017. 1. 1.경 엔지니 어링에 월 기성금 85,181,600원을 지급하기로 하는 개별계약을 체결하였고, 이에 따라

방폭등을 포함한 전기 제품 보수에 필요한 부품은 생산지원팀에서 조달팀에 품의 하여 공급하여 주기로 약정하였다. 이에 따라 피고인은 생산지원팀 차장 N로 하여금 일주일 단위의 작업계획서를 작성하여 ♤엔지니어링에 통보하도록 하고, 그 처리결과 등에 대한 내용은 카카오톡 대화방 등을 통해 보고받았으며, 전기·가스 공급에 필요한 물품 구매 품의에 대한 최종 승인을 하여 왔다.

In addition, when electricity and appliances are used in a place dangerous to gas explosion, they should be selected and used as a explosion-preventive electric equipment and appliances with sufficient explosion-preventive capacity for steam and gas, and their performance should be maintained and managed in a state where they can work normally at all times. In addition, when electricity and appliances are used in a place of business, certified products from a domestic or foreign certified certification institution shall be used, and when they are installed and used in accordance with the manufacturer's product description, etc., the manufacturer's equipment should be installed and used in accordance with the conditions set forth in the manufacturer's product description, etc., so in using electric equipment, the installation, maintenance, and repair should be ensured in accordance with the product description prepared by the divers

Therefore, the Defendant, as the head of the production support team, should check whether or not there is anything so that the Defendant can maintain and preserve the performance of equipment through regular maintenance and checkup at least once a month, and should check and supervise the date of operation of equipment and the date of inspection of equipment prepared in engineering. In particular, for the purpose of preventing explosion caused by the occurrence of inflammable steam or inflammable gas due to painting work, etc., a person with professional knowledge should have a person in charge of management maintain and repair and have a 10) de facto monitoring material such as rubber, shot, or drums that affect the explosion performance, 10) math, light, or shot, or luminous parts, or luminous source malfunctions, etc., and should have contact the manufacturing and inspection so that it does not go against the standards for safety certification or revised product pressure guidelines, etc. by preparing a standard manual for operating equipment at the EEEX work at the e.g., preparing and amending the product pressure manual.

그럼에도 피고인은 ♤엔지니어링에서 안전인증 기준에 부합하도록 방폭등을 보수하는지 여부를 전혀 확인하지 아니하고, 장비운영일지 및 장비점검일지를 매월 점검하지도 아니하였으며, 밀폐작업공간인 탱크 내에 설치되는 내압방폭등의 경우 단순히 페인트 분말 도색으로 인한 글라스 외부 청소를 넘어서 방폭등의 패킹이나 실링 재료가 마모, 경화 또는 탈락되거나 투광성 부품인 글라스의 균열 또는 파손이 있을 경우 제조사에 보내어 A/S를 받는 것이 아니라 자체적인 방폭등 해체 및 부품 교환이 가능하도록 규정해 놓은 보수 작업표준서에 따라 제조사가 정해놓은 규격에 맞는 패킹이나 실링재료를 사용하지 않고 보수하도록 하였을 뿐만 아니라 엔지니어링이 수리를 완료한 방폭등이 방폭성능을 정상적으로 유지하고 있는지 여부를 검사하지 아니하여 2017. 6. 일자불상경 패킹이나 실링재료로 충분히 밀봉 작업이 이루어지지 않는 등 방폭성능을 상실한 내압방폭등이 밀폐공간인 RO탱크에 설치되도록 하는 등 위와 같은 업무상 주의의무를 게을리하여 주식회사 D 소속 근로자들에게 인화성 가스의 누적 등으로 화재·폭발 위험성이 있는 밀폐공간인 RO탱크에서 도장작업을 하게 하는 등 업무상 과실이 있다.

2) Defendant N

The Defendant, as the vice head of the production support team and the vice head of the production support team and the person in charge of safety and health of Pakistan, assisted the production support team leader B, and managed and supervised the installation, management, maintenance, and repair work of electricity, gas, etc. necessary for the site in the shipbuilding yard, identified and improved risk factors and incomplete work methods, and managed and supervised the production support team's safety and health work.

한편 에스티엑스 조선소는 위와 같이 주식회사 엔지니어링과 전기 부분 설치, 유지, 보수 관련 하도급 계약을 체결하였으므로, 이에 따라 피고인은 생산지원팀 차장으로서 선박 건조일정에 따라 일주일 단위로 작업계획서를 작성하여 ♤ 엔지니어링에 제공하고 생산지원팀장 B, 홍00 대리, 황00 대리, 엔지니어링 권00 현장소장, 최00 직장, 이00 반장이 가입된 호선지원반 대화방을 개설하여 전기 설비 설치, 유지, 보수 등에 대한 보고를 받고, 전기 설비 소모품 등의 구매 품의에 대하여 생산지원팀장의 최종 결재 전에 1차 승인을 하여 왔다.

Therefore, the Defendant, as the deputy head of the production support team, should check whether it is so far as it can maintain and preserve the performance of equipment through regular maintenance and inspection, such as checking the equipment operating logs and equipment inspection logs at least once a month, and in particular, for the prevention of explosion caused by the occurrence of inflammable steam or inflammable gas, etc. due to painting work, etc., a person with professional knowledge is required to have him/her maintain and repair it, and where there is a string or de factoing material such as rubber, solid container, etc. which affect the preventive performance, or a string or de factoing material such as rubber, string, shotning, or luminous parts, or luminous source failure, etc., a person with professional knowledge is required to contact with the manufacture and inspection and obtain A/S appropriate for it.

By preparing or amending the work standard report of the EEXS shipbuilding company to ensure that it does not go against the content of the specifications of the CY electric product, a manufacturer, there was a duty of care to supervise the quality of internal voltages, etc. in compliance with safety certification standards.

Nevertheless, the Defendant did not at all check whether the equipment operation log and equipment inspection logs are maintained to meet the standards for safety certification in engineering, and the Defendant did not check the equipment operation log and equipment inspection logs every month. In the event of glass cracks or destruction of glass, such as air pressure conditioning, light-proof, or luminous components, the Defendant sent to the manufacturing process for repair, not receiving A/S, but required to repair strawing or de factoing materials that meet the standards set by the manufacturing process in accordance with the standard form for maintenance and repair work, which provides that the Defendant shall repair without using strawing or de factoing materials that meet the standards set by the manufacturing process, and the Defendant did not check whether the repair pressure breadths, etc. completed are normally maintaining the explosion-preventive performance on June 2017, the Defendant was negligent in performing his/her duty of care in the operation of the storage tank, such as fire-proof tank installation, etc. in an anti-explosion-preventive space, and thus, caused the employees of the company to be negligent in performing its duty of care.

E. Violation of occupational duty of Defendant H, Defendant G, and Defendant C

1) Defendant H

The Defendant, as a representative director and a person in general charge of safety and health of Q Q Co., Ltd., was awarded a contract for S1585 vessel tank special design works ordered by S. S15 S. C to re-contract the special co-manufacturing industry, which is operated by C, and thus, was in charge of the duties of supervising and supervising safety and health affairs at the painting site by inspecting the site prior to the work and checking the use of dangerous machinery, apparatus, equipment, etc., and conducting safety and health education for workers.

Since the Defendant has been working in various domestic shipbuilding stations such as Samsung Heavy Industries for about 30 years, there were many kinds of inflammable substances in the paint that are used for painting work, and in the event of spraying presses using the presses, large amounts of inflammable gas is generated, and in the absence of sufficient ventilation in the storage tank, there was a risk of explosion accidents when gas and chemical sources contact with inflammable gas and chemical sources. In particular, in the case of painting work, the Defendant was aware that the workers, despite the risk of explosion accidents, may not call sufficient ventilation for the convenience of the work.

Therefore, the Defendant has a duty of care to improve the painting work site so that workers do not fasten with cooling function, improve the work site, to inform the safety and health environment team or painting team of the problems, and to prevent accidents, such as preventing accidents, by checking whether the preventive performance is maintained, such as making up a tour of work site at least once a day, and examining whether the inner explosion of the RO tank before painting work is damaged, and by examining whether the installation of LINE and HOSE adjustment standard books, etc. at the EE EX shipbuilding, and by examining whether or not carrying out painting work, the Defendant has a duty of care to prevent accidents, such as preventing accidents, such as informing workers of the problems to the safety and health environment team or painting team of the EE shipbuilding, and requesting them to install a pande.

Nevertheless, the Defendant neglected to perform the above duty of care on August 20, 2017, and did not check whether the explosion-preventive performance has been damaged in the course of painting work or has been deteriorated due to aging, etc., but failed to check whether the installation of LINE for C.O.T.K work and to take measures to improve ventilation volume, etc., and did not take appropriate safety education measures against the employees, even though the employees knew that the air conditioners with cooling function are tampers during the painting work, and did not take any measures, such as failing to take such duties of care as well as having the employees belonging to D perform painting work in an enclosed space where the risk of fire and explosion has been destroyed due to flammable gas accumulation, etc.

2) Defendant G

The Defendant, as the head of Q-site office and supervisor, was delegated by the representative director H, was in charge of the overall process management in the painting site, and the management and supervision of safety and health affairs, such as conducting safety and health education for workers.

For about 30 years, the Defendant has been working for a special painting in various domestic shipbuilding stations, such as Samsung Heavy Industries, and has worked as the site manager for about 10 years. As such, there was a large amount of inflammable gas in the paint that is used for painting work, and in the event of spraying presses using presses, large amounts of inflammable gas is generated, and in the event that there is no adequate ventilation in the tank, in contact with inflammable gas and inflammable source when carrying out painting work, it was well aware that there is a danger of explosion. In particular, in spite of the risk of explosion, in the painting work, it was well aware that the employees might not have a sufficient ventilation for the convenience of the work.

Therefore, the Defendant has a duty of care to prevent safety accidents, such as checking whether the performance of explosion is maintained, such as examining whether the internal air-preventive devices of the RO tank are damaged before painting work, measuring the gas concentration in the tank every day, checking whether the installation of LINE for E.O.T.K work and the HOS adjustment standard document, etc. are sufficiently ventilated during painting work, and improving and rectifying the painting work so that workers do not fasten air-conditioning with cooling function, or requesting the safety and health team or seal team of the E.E. shipbuilding to inform the safety and health team or seal team of the problems of the safety and health of the E.S. shipbuilding, and to additionally install a ventilation.

Nevertheless, around August 20, 2017, the Defendant did not check whether the explosion-preventive devices have been damaged or damaged due to aging, etc. during the course of painting work, and did not take all gas-preventive devices, and did not take all measures to check the installation of LINE for work and take measures to improve ventilation volume, and did not take appropriate safety education for workers, even though he knew that the workers were fluent with air condition during painting work, but did not take any measures, such as failing to take such occupational duties as a failure to take any measures, so that he was negligent in carrying out painting work in an enclosed space where fire and explosion is dangerous due to the accumulation of inflammable gas, etc.

3) Defendant C.

The Defendant, who was registered as the representative director of Q Q Co., Ltd. D and the supervisor of Q Q Co., Ltd., who was awarded a sub-subcontract for the construction of the special drawing in the construction ship subcontracted by Q Q Q from the SE shipbuilding, was in charge of inspecting the site of painting work, assigning adequate number of workers to the painting work site according to the permission for dangerous work regarding painting work, and managing and supervising the site during painting work.

Since the Defendant has been working in various domestic shipbuilding stations such as Hyundai Heavy Industries for about 30 years, there were many inflammable substances in the paint that are used for painting work, and in the event of spraying presses using the presses, large amounts of inflammable gas is generated, and in the event that gas and inflammable source is contacted without sufficient ventilation in the tank, it was well aware that there is a risk of explosion. In particular, in the case of painting work, the Defendant was aware that the employees are able to combine the moisture with the air cooling function for the convenience of the work, regardless of the risk of explosion, and that there is no sufficient ventilation.

Therefore, the Defendant had a duty of care to prevent accidents such as checking whether the installation of LINE and HOSE Adjustment Standard for EOSK work is maintained, and checking whether or not carrying out painting work by inserting the same number of workers as the number of workers indicated in the risk work permit, and having the employees carry out painting work by inserting the same number of workers as the number of workers indicated in the risk work permit. In order to prevent the employees from binding air conditioners during the painting work, the Defendant had a duty of care to correct the errors directly or to inform the safety and health team or the seal team of the EEXS shipbuilding to inform the employees of the problems of the safety and health team or the seal team of the EOSS shipbuilding and to request them to install an additional panty.

Nevertheless, around August 20, 2017, the Defendant did not check whether the explosion-preventive devices installed more than two months prior to September 2017 were damaged in the course of painting or damaged the explosion-preventive performance due to aging, etc., but did not check whether the installation of LINE for work and the HOSE Adjustment Standard, etc., and did not take measures to improve the ventilation volume. The Defendant increased the generation of inflammable gas by inserting four workers on the dangerous work permit, even though the number of workers on the work permit is three, and caused them to conduct painting work. In addition, the Defendant neglected the duty of care as seen above, such as failing to take any measures, and caused D workers under his/her jurisdiction to perform the work in an enclosed space, which is dangerous for fire or explosion, due to the cumulative gas, etc.

F. From around 10:25 on August 20, 2017, the Defendants’ occupational negligence competed with the above occupational negligence, and from around 10:10 to 25 on August 20, 2017, TRO tank installed at the seat of S1585 at the above 4 premises of the EEEX shipbuilding yard, the victims’ strict 00 (46 years old), victims’ 00 (54 years old), victims’ 70 (53 years old), and victims’ 00 (34 years old) started with special strings using two strings. At around 11:36 on the same day, the steam or inflammable gas of the victims of inflammable liquid generated from the above painting was accumulated in a tank, and the above bitO was inflammable into the upper part of the 2nd explosion, which was installed in the tank and did not have an explosion treatment function, and thus, it was found to have been discharged into the bit, such as an explosion or explosion.

As a result, the Defendants jointly caused the death of the victim was 40 (the 46 years old), the victim was 00 (the 54 years old), the victim Kim 00 (the 53 years old), and the victim Park 00 (the 34 years old) at around that time due to the above occupational negligence. 2. Violation of the Occupational Safety and Health Act by Defendant C and Defendant D

A. Defendant C

The Defendant, as the representative director of Q Q EX Co., Ltd. D, who re-subcontracted the special escape house construction in a building vessel subcontracted by Q Q Q EX, was engaged in an act for the safety and health of its employees.

On August 20, 2017, the Defendant had the victim 00, a worker belonging to the instant vessel, and the victim 00 use the presses, and had the victim 10 do the auxiliary work, such as the reorganization of the presses, around August 20, 2017.

1) Violation of the Occupational Safety and Health Act concerning occupational death

When the business owner uses electricity and appliances at a gas explosion risk place or a powder explosion risk place following the manufacture, handling or use of inflammable liquid steam or inflammable gas, he/she shall select and use such electricity and appliances with explosion-preventive capability suitable for the steam, gas or dust dust, and shall ensure that the performance of the electricity and appliances with explosion-preventive capability can be maintained and managed in a state where they can function normally at all times.

Nevertheless, the Defendant violated duties of care as prescribed in Article 1(e)(3), such as failing to manage so that the preventive performance of explosion-preventive devices can be maintained normally, while having the victims conduct painting work within the RO tank using paints containing inflammable substances, while having the victims do so, even though being aware that the external shock, aging, etc. might have deteriorated the preventive performance of explosion-preventive devices due to external shock, aging, etc., at the same time and place as above, and did not take necessary safety measures as above, thereby causing death of the victim as prescribed in Article 1(f).

2) Other violations of the Occupational Safety and Health Act

A) The business owner must set up a classification of places where inflammable steam or inflammable gas is manufactured, handled or used, and set up and manage them as gas explosion risk places or powder explosion risk places.

B) The business owner shall not use a place where dangerous substances are likely to cause explosion or fire, or fire or a fire, machinery, apparatus, tools, tools, etc. that have caused or might cause high temperature in the upper part thereof.

C) When a business owner orders a worker to work in an enclosed space, he/she shall establish and implement a closed space work program, including information about the location of the closed space, measures for management, identification and management of harmful and dangerous factors which may cause corrosion, addiction, etc., procedures for confirmation of matters requiring prior verification at the time of work in the closed space, safety and health education and training, and prevention of health disorder of workers working in the closed space.

D) If a business owner requires workers to work in an enclosed space, he/she shall require a safety manager, health manager, etc. to measure the concentration of oxygen and harmful gas in the sealed space to assess whether the adequate air is maintained.

(e) The business owner shall designate a supervisor to monitor the situation of the work while working in the sealed space and assign him/her to the outside of the sealed space.

Nevertheless, the Defendant, at the above time and place, had the victims conduct painting work using paints containing inflammable substances, and did not establish and manage the location classification of the place at which the risk of explosion exists, and did not confirm that it is likely to cause or high temperature of lighting, electric lights, etc. to be used during painting work, and electric sprinks or carkes, and neglected workers to use without confirming it. The Defendant did not establish and implement a sealed space work program without providing safety and health education and training to workers, and did not take necessary safety measures, such as not measuring the concentration of harmful gas prior to painting work, designating a supervisor capable of monitoring the status of the work, and not posting them outside the sealed space, such as failing to take necessary safety measures.

B. Defendant D

The defendant did not take necessary safety measures in relation to the defendant's business, such as the date, time, place specified in paragraph (1) of Article 2, and C, the representative director of the defendant, with respect to the defendant's business.

3. Defendant E and Defendant E, as the captain of the shipbuilding yard of P Co., Ltd., Defendant E, in violation of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of EE X-ray, committed an act for the P Co., Ltd. on the safety and health of his employees and his employees, and Defendant P Co., Ltd., as a corporation established on April 10, 1967 for the purpose of shipbuilding ships at 60, 1,400 full-time employees and engaged in shipbuilding ships.

A. Defendant E

1) Violation of the Occupational Safety and Health Act concerning occupational death

Around August 20, 2017, the Defendant had a subcontractor work for a petrochemicals carrier S 1585 Line Special RoO tank work, which was built on the 4th wall inside a P Co., Ltd., and the business owner of a business that is carried out in the same place by separating a part of the business in the same place and gives a contract to the subcontractor, shall take the following necessary measures to prevent industrial accidents as prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Employment and Labor when his/her workers are engaged in work at the sealed space, at the place where hazardous materials are handled, at the place where hazardous materials are handled, at a special place where organic compound is handled inside the ship:

A) The owner of a plant shall establish a plan to classify places where inflammable steam, inflammable gas, etc. are manufactured, handled or used, and shall establish and manage such places as gas explosion risk places or powder explosion risk places;

(B) the owner shall not use fire or ices, machinery, apparatus, tools, tools, etc. in places where dangerous substances might cause explosion or fire, or upper parts thereof that cause or threaten to cause high temperature;

(C) In the event that a business owner uses electricity or apparatus at a gas explosion risk place due to the manufacture, handling or use of inflammable liquid steam or inflammable gas or at a powder explosion risk place, the business owner shall select and use preventive structure electric appliances with preventive capacity appropriate for the steam, gas or dust, and maintain and maintain the performance of the preventive structure electric appliances and apparatus at all times in a state where they can function normally;

(d) when a business owner requires workers to work in an enclosed space, he/she shall establish and implement a closed space work program containing matters concerning the identification of the location of the closed space, the method of management, the identification and management of harmful and dangerous factors that may cause corrosion, addiction, etc., the procedure for confirmation of the matters requiring a prior verification at the time of conducting the closed space work, safety and health education and training, and the prevention of health disorder for workers engaged in the closed space work;

(e) the business owner must require the supervisor, safety manager, health manager, etc. in advance to measure the concentration of oxygen and harmful gas in the sealed space to assess whether the adequate air is maintained, where the business owner allows workers to work in the sealed space; and

(f) while workers are engaged in operations in sealed spaces, designate a supervisor to monitor the status of operations and assign him/her to the outside of sealed spaces.

Nevertheless, the Defendant, at the above date and at the same place, had the subcontractor's workers, who are victims, engage in special design work using paints that generate inflammable steam or inflammable gas, such as chrene, from the RO tank, and did not prepare an explosion risk location classification map for the ship tank with inflammable steams, and did not take measures to change the frame into non-metallic material despite the risk of sprinking with metal material, although the spacks are likely to cause flames, and the Defendant neglected the use of spacks, etc. in the place of explosion risk, the performance test or certification of the explosion-preventive performance of which has not been verified, and prevented the use of the portable electric machinery, tools, or portable electric appliances at the time of tank painting work.

B. B did not provide parts for the maintenance of the explosion-preventive performance while repairing and using the explosion-preventive materials, and did not check the process of verifying the explosion-preventive performance of the repaired explosion-preventive materials or damage to the explosion-preventive lights installed at the site, and did not implement safety measures, such as neglecting the seal workers to be exposed to explosion, and did not confirm whether the contractor’s work program was established and implemented, and did not control whether the appropriate air is maintained by measuring the concentration of oxygen and harmful gas prior to the work of the sealed space, and even if the supervisor was not posted, separate measures were taken at the site.

No. 1(a) fails to take health measures, such as neglecting to issue a work permit without delay, thereby violating the duty of care as set forth in paragraph 1(a) and failing to take necessary safety measures as seen above, thereby causing the death of the victim, the victim’s 00, the victim’s 00, the victim Kim 00, and the victim’s 00.

2) Other violations of the Occupational Safety and Health Act

가) 사업주는 기계·기구, 그 밖의 설비에 의한 위험을 예방하기 위하여 안전검사기준에 적합하지 않은 기계·기구 설비 및 방호장치 보호구 등을 사용하지 않도록 하는 등 필요한 조치를 하여야 함에도 2017. 8. 22. 선각공장 31BAY 3B-10 갠트리크레인의 조립볼트를 체결하지 않는 등 별지 범죄일람표(1) 순번 1번 내지 23번 기재와 같이 기계·기구, 그 밖의 설비에 의한 위험을 예방하기 위해 필요한 조치를 이행하지 아니하였다.

B) In order to prevent danger by electricity, heat, or inflammable substances, when a business owner uses electric machinery at a gas explosion risk place or a powder explosion risk place, he/she has to select and use explosion-preventive structure electric machinery and appliances with explosion-preventive performance suitable for the steam, gas, or dust, as stated in the Korean Industrial Standards established under the Industrial Standardization Act, but on August 23, 2017, the business owner failed to take safety measures as described in the attached Table 24 through 32, for the purpose of preventing danger by electricity, heat, or other energy, such as failing to take measures such as redelivery of the attached Table 1, 24 through 32, such as that he/she does not use an explosion-preventive force at a pre-treatment treatment plant, which is a explosion-preventive area.

D) In order to prevent hazards caused by improper work methods, etc. in the course of excavating, quarrying, loading and unloading, timbering, transporting, operating, dismantling, handling heavy objects, and other operations, the owner of the vehicle and the driver of the rolling stock did not take safety measures, such as the vehicle mooring, loading and unloading transportation machinery, etc., and the driver of the rolling stock, in a case where the driver of the rolling stock deviates from the driver’s location, the rolling stock should be separated from the driver’s rolling stock, but the driver did not implement the safety measures as stated in the annexed crime list (1) No. 78 through 82, such as that the driver left the driver’s location on August 22, 2017.

E) In the places where workers might fall down at work, where sand, structures, etc. might collapse, where material objects might fall or fall, where other danger may occur due to a natural disaster in the course of the work, and where the workers might fall down at the end or opening of the work launch board and passage in order to prevent such danger, a business owner shall have a strong structure with sufficient strength to protect the safety distress, fences, vertical fall-off net or cover, etc. In order to prevent the danger, the business owner has failed to take safety measures, such as failing to take safety measures as stated in the attached Table (1) No. 83 through No. 177, Aug. 24, 2017.

F) Although a business owner has regularly conducted training on the operation of an emergency liaison system, the use of rescue equipment, the wearing of air conditioning apparatus or air conditioning system, the wearing of first aid, etc. at least ten workers at least once a month, once every month, with respect to workers working in an enclosed space so that they can respond to an emergency situation, he/she did not conduct emergency rescue training at least once every six months, as described in No. 178 of the attached Table of Crimes (1) in the attached Table of Crimes (1).

G) Although a business owner must regularly or occasionally check the safety and health of the workplace with his/her employees, his/her contractor and his/her employees, he/she did not participate in the joint safety and health inspection of the contract business on June 8, 2017, as shown in [Attachment 1] No. 179.

H) Notwithstanding the fact that a business owner is unable to manufacture, import, transfer, lend, use, or display for the purpose of leasing, machinery, apparatus, etc. subject to safety certification without obtaining safety certification or failing to meet the safety certification standards, he/she used 980 vehicles, such as the width that was not certified by safety prior to February 2016, or the explosion that lost explosion function. As shown in the attached Table No. 181, as shown in the attached Table No. 181, a business owner used a protective uniform without obtaining safety certification for dances who handle harmful substances subject to the control of diversity, Toluene, etc.

(i) A business owner shall inform workers at the relevant workplace of the result of the working environment measurement, and, as a result, take appropriate measures, such as the installation and improvement of the relevant facilities and equipment, or the performance of the construction diagnosis in order to protect the health of workers, but failed to take appropriate measures, such as improving the results of the measurement of the working environment conducted from June 3, 2016 to July 28 of the same year from around July 3, 2016 and from around December 5 of the same year to around December 7 of the same year.

(j) When a business owner establishes a complaint work unit, he/she has failed to take necessary measures to prevent any danger caused by machinery, apparatus, or other equipment, such as neglecting the mark of the Operational Team 24-47, on October 12, 2017, by neglecting it with poor marks of the Operational Team 24-47, the location of the Operational Team was maintained so that it can be seen visually.

(k) In the event that a business owner does fire risk work inside a building or facility where combustible materials are located without adequate ventilation or ventilation, he/she failed to take measures to prevent scattering, such as divers for the prevention of scattering, such as divers for the prevention of scattering, melting fire extinguishings such as melting fire, and fire extinguishings, although he/she is required to comply with the measures to prevent scattering, such as divers for the prevention of scattering, melting fire extinguishings, and divers, etc., on October 12, 2017.

(l) In order to prevent the danger of electric shock, the business owner did not take safety measures necessary for the prevention of risks caused by electricity, heat, or other energy, such as the list Nos. 6 through 10 as shown in the attached Table of Crimes (2) Nos. 1586, S1586, S1586, S-274, on October 12, 2017.

(m) A business owner shall install a reinforced with sufficient strength protection measures, such as safety distress, fences, vertical crashing net, or cover, at a place where workers might fall down, as the end or opening of the work launch board and passage. In the case of installing a cover, a business owner shall install the cover so that it does not cut down or fall. However, the business owner did not take necessary safety measures to prevent the danger at a place where the workers might fall down, such as a place where soil, sand, water, etc. might fall, a place where the objects might fall or fall, a place where the objects might fall or fall, or a place where the risk might occur in the course of the work, or a place where the risk may occur in the course of the work, such as a natural disaster. However, the business owner did not take necessary safety measures to prevent the danger.

(n) With respect to indoor work sites where gas, steam, dust, home, or dust, etc. are emitted, the business owner shall take necessary measures, such as installing facilities to suppress the emission of gas, etc., facilities to prevent the emission of gas, etc., or facilities to prevent the emission of air sources, or facilities to prevent the emission of gas, etc., or facilities to install central air exhausters or general ventilation equipment, etc., but the business owner did not implement air ventilation in the contact engine room of 1585 S. S. S. S. S. S. 1587 elected from 1587 to 80A.

B. Defendant P Co., Ltd.

The defendant E, who is a person in general charge of safety and health of the defendant, did not perform the duty of safety and health measures necessary for the defendant's work, as described in paragraph (1) of Article 3 with respect to the defendant's work.

4. Around August 21, 2017, Defendant H’s fabrication and uttering of private documents (a labor contract with four death workers, such as strict 00, forged and exercised), the general secretary of Q 00, who was affiliated with Q O, called Q O, to the Defendant at Q △△ office located along the coast of Gosung-gun, Kim Sung-gun, and called the Defendant to require a labor contract by calling the Defendant at the office of Q △△△△△, which was located along the coast of Gosung-gun, and called that the employment contract is necessary. The Defendant, around that time, did not prepare a written labor contract with the seal-based employee at the funeral hall of Jinhae-gu, Changwon-gu, Changwon-si, the Defendant agreed to forge the labor contract as if the written labor contract was prepared, and did not call to the maximum △△△, who worked in Q O, to newly prepare an employment contract with the Defendant, and signed the employment contract with the Defendant’s maximum △△ and the Defendant’s instructions.

Around August 21, 2017, AO prepared four labor contracts with four workers who died of a serious00, such as attached Table 1 through 4, from the office of the above Q Q Q Q Co., Ltd. to a computer, and printed out four copies of the labor contract, as shown in attached Table 1 to 4, and the inside00 and the highest △△△△△△ voluntarily entered the name and signature of the workers in four copies of the labor contract.

Then, around August 21, 2017, at the office of the above Q Q Co., Ltd. around 17:08, four copies of the forged employment contract for four workers who died, such as a serious 00, forged as above, was sent by facsimile as if they were genuinely formed to the labor inspector Kim-Promotion. Accordingly, in collusion with the defendant, the defendant forged four copies of the employment contract for four workers, who are private documents concerning rights and duties, for the purpose of exercising as described in the attached list Nos. 1 through 4, and exercised four copies of the forged employment contract.

5. Defendant H and Defendant C’s fabrication of private documents (a labor contract for 37 workers, including the Plaintiff △△△△△△) and the △△△△△△△, on August 21, 2017, upon receiving Defendant H’s instructions, as stated in paragraph (4), with intent to forge the employment contract of the seal writers, and written out and print out 37 copies of the employment contract of △△△△△△△△△ and 37 workers, including the Plaintiff △△△△△△△△△ and the 37 copies of the employment contract, as indicated in the attached list of crimes (3) Nos. 5 through 41, respectively, with intent to forge the employment contract of the seal writers, as stated in the attached list of crimes (3).

On the other hand, Defendant H made a new employment contract to Defendant C in the vicinity of the funeral hall of the Jinhae-si Hospital, and thus, Defendant C signed the corporate seal imprint of the D Co., Ltd., and Defendant C knew of the fact that the above employment contract is forged, Defendant C told Defendant H to affix the corporate seal imprint.

After that, the highest △△△△ around the same day, it delivered 37 copies of the above forged employment contract to Defendant C at the park near the above funeral hall, and Defendant C affixed the seal impression of the corporation D on 37 copies of the above employment contract.

Accordingly, the Defendants, in collusion with the △△△△△△△, forged 37 copies of the employment contract for 37 employees, who are private documents related to rights and duties, for the purpose of exercising them as described in the separate list of crimes (3) Nos. 5 through 41.

Summary of Evidence

Facts No. 1

1. Each legal statement of the Defendant A, B, C, E, F, G, H, I, J,K, M, and N

1. Each protocol of interrogation of the Defendant A, B, C, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, M, and N in the preparation of the prosecutor; each protocol of interrogation of the Prosecutor; 1.00, new0, and each protocol of statement of the Prosecutor;

1. 사법경찰관(리) 작성의 김소, 임소, 조소, 엄소, 이소, 김☆, 곽☆, 김☆☆, 김,차,차조●●,최●●,문성열,박최□□,황00, 임▼, 김△△, 홍00, 김□□, 이▼, 박□□, 윤□□, 이□, 김▼▼, 이▼▼, 조원일,장 ▼▼, 김▼, 김□□, 최□, 정미, 박해수, 정용화, 장▼에 대한 각 진술조서 1. 특별사법경찰관 작성의 이00에 대한 진술조서

1. A written opinion on the application/permission for dangerous work, guidelines for permission for dangerous work, close space work, cooperative safety and health control rules, output of intra-company mail (cases sent as a result of the S1585 Fair Session), senior supervisor appointed by the supervisor (C), senior supervisor appointed by the supervisor (G), inspection and appraisal report, assistant inspector for appraisal, response related to the request for cooperation in investigation affairs (National Institute of Scientific Investigation and Investigation, Busan Institute for Industrial Safety and Health Certification), and opinion on the accident investigation;

1. Investigation reports (on-site identification), investigation reports (on-site identifications), ventilation quantities necessary in R/O tanks, investigation reports (joint identifications about the explosion prevention, etc.), investigation reports (general responsibility for safety and health of the STX vessels and the current status of appointment of safety health managers), investigation reports (verification of false educational data on the supervisor of the STX), investigation reports (verification of the amount of explosion explosion explosion preventive preventive measures, etc.), investigation reports (verification of the amount of explosion preventive measures, etc.), investigation reports (in relation to the control of gas measuring devices and inspection, etc.), investigation reports (in relation to the verification of the current status of the prevention of explosion, etc. of the STX vessels), investigation reports (in relation to the prevention of explosion, etc. used at the site of the accident), reinforcements for poor control such as B, N/O tank 1 and 2 painting work reports, investigation reports (in relation to the number of employees working at the STX tanks/O tank 3, investigation report on installation standards for mobile phones, investigation report on performance, observation, etc., investigation report related to pans and pans;

Facts of Decision 2

1. Defendant C’s partial statement

1. 증인 G, H의 각 진술 1. 제4회 공판조서 중 증인 안00, 황▼의 각 진술 부분

1. Each suspect interrogation protocol prepared by the public prosecutor C and H;

1. Statement of the prosecutor’s preparation;

1. 특별사법경찰관 작성의 C에 대한 피의자신문조서 1.사법경찰관(리) 작성의 곽☆,김☆☆,김●,차●,차●●,문성열,박□□,박 해수, 임▼에 대한 각 진술조서

1. 00 of the preparation of the special judicial police officer, and the actual record of each statement;

1. A written application/permission for dangerous work, internal investigation report (as to the confirmation of paints and paintings around the scene of the accident), all of the registered matters (a certificate of Q Co., Ltd., D), guidelines for permission for dangerous work, close space work guidelines, a written agreement on the payment of construction cost in July 2017, each of the master special hosting industry benefits principles, each contract, each contract letter, appointment of a supervisor, a deputy inspection and appraisal report, a request for appraisal, a report on the results of special supervision of industrial safety and health, a report on the results of special supervision of industrial safety and health, and a written opinion on the accident investigation;

1. Investigation report (as regards ventilation and stoke experiments necessary in the R/O tank), investigation report (as to the joint identification of explosion preventive lights, etc.), investigation report (as to evidence relation, such as the analysis of addition of seized articles of suspect E, etc.), investigation report (as to the number of workers within the R/O tank 1 and the second painting work, difference between the number of workers), investigation report (as to the standards for installation of panpanty), investigation report (as to the damp and ventilation panty stop stowing and performance);

Facts No. 3

1. Defendant E’s legal statement;

1. 증인 이△△, G, H, C의 각 진술 1. 제4회 공판조서 중 증인 황▼의 진술 부분

1. Part of the fifth trial record concerning the witness Park △△△ and the statement of interest;

1. Each protocol of interrogation of the accused A, B, C, E, F, G, I, J, K, M, and N in the prosecutor’s preparation of each protocol of interrogation of the accused, B, C, E, F, G, and N;

1. 특별사법경찰관 작성의 피고인 E에 대한 피의자신문조서 1.사법경찰관(리)작성의조●●,최●●,박최□□,황00,홍00,김미 박□□,윤□□,김□□,최□정,김△△,이,김▼▼,이▼장▼▼,김 ▼, 임▼, 장▼, 이▼에 대한 각 진술조서

1. Statement of 00 prepared by a special judicial police officer;

1. A written autopsy and appraisal request, an appraisal request report (the National Institute of Scientific Investigation, the Busan Institute of Scientific and Investigative Research), a reply related to the request for cooperation in investigation affairs, a report on the results of special supervision on occupational safety and health, a written opinion on accident investigation, a report on the completion of corrective measures as a result of special supervision in 2017, and a report on the results of confirmation;

1. Investigation reports (Confirmation, etc. of the current status of the closed zone), investigation reports (to call volume and scarping experiments necessary in the R/O tank), investigation reports (joint identification matters for the explosion prevention, etc.), investigation reports (general responsibility for safety and health of the TSX line ocean and current status of appointment of safety and health managers), investigation reports (verification of educational data for the supervisor of the TSX), investigation reports (verification of the amount of explosion prevention, etc.), investigation reports (verification of the amount of explosion prevention, etc.), investigation reports (verification of the amount of explosion prevention, etc.), investigation reports (verification of the current status of the management of the TSX line), investigation reports (verification of the amount of explosion prevention, etc. used in the site of the accident), investigation reports (verification of evidence such as additional analysis of seized articles), investigation reports (in addition, reinforcement of the investigation reports such as B and N) (in the presence of poor management), investigation reports, investigation reports [standard report on work reports, msD (SSD) records, investigation report on the results of the investigation report, investigation report and related investigation report, etc.

Each fact of Nos. 4 and 5

1. Each legal statement of the defendant C and H

1. 제4회 공판조서 중 안00, 황▼의 각 진술 부분

1. The interrogation protocol of the most △△△△ prepared by the judicial police officer;

1. Each employment contract;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to investigation reports (the exercise of suspect H and C, etc. perjury)

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

Defendant A: Articles 268 and 30 of the Criminal Act: Defendant C: Articles 268 and 30 of the Criminal Act; Articles 268 and 30 of the Criminal Act; Articles 231 and 30 of the Criminal Act; Articles 71 and 13 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act; Articles 66-2 and 23(1)2 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act (the death of a worker due to nonperformance of the duty to take safety measures); Articles 71, 67 subparag. 1, 23(1), and 24(1) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act (the fact that each duty to take safety measures and breach of the duty to take health measures)

Defendant D: Article 71, Article 66-2, Article 23(1)2 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act; Article 71, Article 67 subparag. 1, Article 23(1), Article 24(1) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act; Article 268 and Article 30 of the Criminal Act; Article 71, Article 68 subparag. 3, Article 29(3) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act; Article 67 subparag. 1, Article 23 subparag. 7 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act; Article 30 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act; Article 8 subparag. 2 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act; Article 67 subparag. 7 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act; Article 30 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act; Article 71, Article 70 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act; Article 24(1) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act; Article 77 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act; Article 67 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act; Article 67 of the Safety and Health Act

1. Commercial competition;

Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act (trades of occupational negligence of Defendants A, B, C, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, M, and N: Provided, That with respect to Defendant C and E, trade concurrences between the above occupational negligence and the crime of occupational injury and death and the crime of violation of the Industrial Safety and Health Act) are established. Trade concurrences between Defendant H are established with respect to each of the crimes of uttering of each of the above investigation documents

1. Selection of punishment;

Defendant A, B, F, G, I, J, and K: Defendant C of each imprisonment without prison labor: The choice of each imprisonment without prison labor

- Defendant E: Determination of imprisonment without prison labor for the crime of occupational death and the crime of violation of the Occupational Safety and Health Act; Provided, That the crime of violation of the Occupational Safety and Health Act, the statutory penalty of which is limited, shall be punished by a fine.

Defendant H: Determination of imprisonment without prison labor for the crime of occupational death, fabrication of private documents, and preparation of imprisonment for the crime of occupational death

Defendant M and N: Selection of each fine

Defendant D and P Co., Ltd.: Selection of each fine

1. Aggravation (Defendant C, E, H, D, and P Co., Ltd.);

Article 37 (former part), Article 38(1)2, 38(2), and 50 of the Criminal Act

1. Detention in a workhouse (Defendant E, M, N);

Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act

1. Suspension of execution (Defendant A, B, C, E, F, G, H, I, J, and K);

Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act

1. Orders to provide community service or attend lectures (Defendant E, F, G, H, J, K);

Article 62-2 (1) of the Criminal Act

1. A provisional payment order (Defendant E, M, N, D, and P Co., Ltd.);

Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

Judgment on Defendant C and Defendant D’s assertion

1. Summary of the Defendants’ assertion

A business owner who shall take measures concerning safety and health in Articles 23 and 24 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act refers not to a business owner who has entered into a labor contract, such as a simple employment contract or a contract, but to a "business owner who has the ability or duty to take measures concerning safety and health."

In the case of the special shipbuilding works of the shipbuilding yard, it is operated in the form of illegal dispatch and disguised contract by creating so-called so-called quantity team in order to reduce the responsibility for employment and its liability, and to promptly cope with changes in the quantity.

피고인 C은 과거 주식회사 Q(대표이사 H)의 물량팀인 박▼의 업무를 그대로 승계한 것이고, 피고인 주식회사 D은 박▼의 물량팀이 한 작업과 동일하게 주식회사 Q에서 지시하는 특수도장작업만을 하였다.

Defendant D is a company established in the form of a company to conduct the special escape work ordered by Q Q. Thus, the business owner who is obligated to take measures for safety and health as prescribed by the rules on the industrial safety standards at the place of business is Q.

Defendants are not employers under the Occupational Safety and Health Act.

2. Determination

A. Relevant legal principles

The crime of violating Articles 66-2 and 23(1) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act is established when an employer is found to have been engaged in the above work without taking safety measures as prescribed by the rules on industrial safety standards at the workplace operated by the employer, rather than simply taking the responsibility for neglecting the management and supervision of the employees under his/her control, and where it is deemed that the above work was conducted without taking safety measures as prescribed by the rules on industrial safety standards. As such, the employer’s obligation to take safety measures to protect the employees under his/her control is premised on a substantive employment relationship between the employer and the employee. Here, the existence of substantial employment relationship does not depend on the form of the employment contract, such as an employment contract or a contract, but only where the employee is deemed to have provided his/her work in a subordinate relationship (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Do2615, Jun. 24, 2010).

B. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by this court as to whether Defendant D can be seen as an employer under the Occupational Safety and Health Act, it is reasonable to view that Defendant D constitutes a business owner who runs a business by using workers. Accordingly, to protect the employees belonging to the Industrial Safety and Health Act.

have a duty to take such safety measures.

1) At the time of the accident, four workers who died were engaged in the special map work inside the RO tank. The above special map work was subcontracted to Q Q Co., Ltd. registered as the intra-company subcontractor, and Q Q Co., Ltd. was sub-subcontracted to Defendant D in a lump sum.

2) Defendant D and Q are the same location of the head office of Defendant D and Q are the same, and employees affiliated with Q have been handling part of the administrative affairs of Defendant D. However, Defendant D and Q are different from their human resources, and their contents of business are distinct.

3) 주식회사 Q 소속 근로자 수는 8명이고, 피고인 주식회사 D 소속 근로자 수는 44명이다. 피고인 주식회사 D의 대표이사인 피고인 C은 박▼의 근로자를 일부 채용하기도 하였으나, 자신과 같이 일을 하였던 사람들을 중심으로 근로자를 채용하였고, 근로자의 임금도 직접 지급하였다.

4) It is difficult to find out the circumstances to deem that Defendant D was punished to the extent that it was not merely a field-based business for Q Q, or that it reached the degree of denial of legal personality.

5) The reason why ship painting work is mainly conducted by a subcontractor is not what can be done, but only a person with expertise can be done within one year. This is because it does not have a fixed period of time within one year, from the standpoint of a shipbuilding yard, securing the flexibility of human resources, and from the standpoint of a subcontractor, stable profits can be earned every month by returning to various companies. Accordingly, ship painting work is mainly conducted through subcontracting.

6) Q Co., Ltd. performed only administrative work, support work such as procurement of equipment and materials, and field management and supervision work with the prime contractor (P Co., Ltd.) while resubcontracting the entire quantity contracted by the prime contractor (P Co., Ltd.) to Defendant D.

7) The victim et al. registered and work for painting workers as workers of Q Q, and the victim et al. also subscribed to the injury (disaster) group insurance in Q Q.

However, all of the above workers were employed by Defendant C, and the work instruction was also received from Defendant C. All of the wages, etc. from the work was paid by Defendant C by Defendant C as the representative director.

8) Defendant D Co., Ltd. entered into a subcontract with Q Q Co., Ltd., and imposed taxes, such as value-added tax. The profits and losses under a subcontract agreement were all attributed to Defendant Co., Ltd.

9) After concluding a sub-subcontract with Q Q Co., Ltd., Defendant D entered into a sub-subcontract, and established a plan for the formation of a working group and the supply and demand of human resources for painting work. Q Co., Ltd., as a subcontractor, consulted with P Co., Ltd., a prime contractor, and transferred the details thereof to Defendant D, a re-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-subcon

10) In light of the above, it is difficult to see that a subcontract agreement between Defendant D and Q is formally concluded, and the actual employment relationship between Defendant D and the victims is also recognized.

C. In full view of all the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court as to whether Defendant D did not perform the duty of safety measures, it is recognized that Defendant D, without taking safety measures as prescribed by the Rules on Industrial Safety and Security at the workplace operated by it, ordered Defendant D to work in danger of safety, or left alone despite being aware of the fact that the work was performed without taking safety measures. It is reasonable to view Defendant D, as the business owner under the Occupational Safety and Health Act, did not perform the duty of safety measures.

1) According to the response to the request of the head of the Busan Science Investigation Research Institute (Legal and Chemical Appraisal), gas related to explosion inside the RO tank was submitted as a result of an assessment of the cause of an accident that is presumed to be a testamentary gift of organic solventss contained in painting presses, light chemical agents, and the widths, and that it is presumed to be a high temperature surface of the metrade lamps installed inside the width, etc. No. 2.

2) Defendant C made the following statements at the prosecutor’s office. Comprehensively considering the contents of Defendant C’s statement, Defendant C was well aware that the work was performed without safety measures.

A) The Defendant was at least 30 years in special Dos, and the Defendant was first engaged in the same EE-ray shipbuilding. While he had a variety of shipbuilding stations at Hanmadi, in relation to ventilation, EE SE shipbuilding is the highest. The circumstances are much more than 15 KE shipbuilding stations. When one distribution tank is 15, at least 12-13 air ventilation stations must be operated. The air ventilation should be kept and operated in the vicinity of the tank C-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-E.

B) The Director of the Shipbuilding, while carrying the tank surrounding the tank, did not enter the tank. Of course, he did not enter the tank. Of course, he did not seem to have been equipped with a panty airba while reporting the tank’s status or the condition of cleaning and binding it into a panty airba (Evidence Nos. 9,300, 23 book Nos. 18).

C) On the other hand, a person talks about whether or not the person entered a bomb, etc., and confirmed the leakage by using the device with which the person had the bomb, etc... In addition, the person informed that the contact with this production support team should be checked, and that the person did not have a detailed examination of the bomb, etc. (Evidence Nos. 9,302, 23 Book Nos. 18).

D) The same applies to explosion-preventive lights. If a person conducts pre-treatment prior to painting, metal scrap dust would be cut or broken down due to the high pressure of dust dust from a tank. On the other hand, after the pre-treatment work, a person in charge of the safety management of the original office is required to conduct a safety inspection, such as explosion-preventives, or to be cut off with electric wires. However, there has been no way to conduct a pre-treatment even until now. There has been no room to conduct a pre-treatment (Evidence No. 9,305 pages, 23 Book No. 18). There has not been any accident even after this inspection (Evidence No. 9,305 pages, 23 Book No. 18).

3) Unlike the number of workers on a dangerous work permit (two or more employees, one assistant) on the TRO tank in which the instant accident occurred, Defendant C inputs four workers (two or more employees, and two assistant employees). As such, if the number of workers increases, the transfer of a testamentary gift resulting from an increase in the working efficiency is increased. The Defendant also acknowledged by the prosecutor that the prosecution acknowledged that, in addition to three employees approved in the dangerous work permit on the date of the accident, a large quantity of testamentary gift created an explosive condition by making one of the workers as soon as possible by inserting the number of workers more than three other than those approved in the dangerous work permit on the same day.

4) The Defendants asserted to the effect that the part causing the instant accident, such as explosion control, is only the duties in charge of P Co., Ltd., the prime contractor, and that the Defendants’ work is not the duties.

However, even if the subcontractor does not directly manage and operate the subcontractor's workplace, if the management and supervision employee, such as the head of the site of the subcontractor and the subcontractor's workplace, works as the subcontractor, or in addition to the subcontractor or the subcontractor, has the obligation to take safety and health measures that can be performed by the subcontractor and the subcontractor, not only the subcontractor but also the subcontractor may be punished for the violation of the obligation to take safety and health measures under the Occupational Safety and Health Act.

5) In light of the fact that Defendant C was a person responsible for safety and health as a person responsible for the instant work site, it is difficult to deem that the Defendants’ duty to take safety measures is exempt or extinguished from the duty to directly direct and supervise workers solely on the ground that he/she had a duty to manage the business site. In addition, the Defendants’ duty to take safety measures as stated in this part of the facts charged can be sufficiently performed by the subcontractor in addition

6) Article 29(3) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act provides that “The obligation to take measures to prevent industrial accidents of a contractor to be taken when a worker employed by the contractor engages in work at a place where there is a risk of industrial accidents as prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Employment and Labor (Article 30(4) of the Enforcement Rule), such as a place where soil and sand collapse, fire, explosion, fall, or fall is the same obligation to take measures as those of the contractor who have a direct employment relationship with the worker pursuant to Article 30(5) of the Enforcement Rule. Therefore, if violating this obligation, both the contractor and the contractor, and both the contractor and the contractor’s subcontractor are established in violation of the Occupational

3. Conclusion

The Defendants’ assertion to the effect that the Defendants were not employers under the Occupational Safety and Health Act, or did not perform safety measures is difficult to accept.

The reasons for sentencing (the defendants as natural persons other than juristic persons)

1. The Defendants were the captain of the common partP Co., Ltd., or the safety and health officer, the subcontractor’s representative, and the Defendants, who are the safety manager, neglected their respective safety management obligations, thereby resulting in the death of four workers of the subcontractor. The instant case was based on one of the natural persons, who was a final fault. Rather, the Defendants were in the middle of safety and health measures in the industrial field.

The results of each person's duty of care on safety and health measures without recognizing the essential nature properly conflict with each other, and overlap with the above results.

In the case of dangerous work involving inflammable substances by spraying them with the presses, which is a sealed space, the risk of explosion exists. In order to prevent such dangerous work, it is necessary to take measures such as ventilation and dust removal, etc. In order to take measures as ventilation and dust removal, etc., and in the case of washing, painting, etc. in an inflammable liquid using presses in an enclosed space, lighting, etc. shall take measures to check and take necessary measures to check and improve the working environment such as rubber, solid container, etc. In addition, it is necessary to check the matters concerning the inspection and improvement of the working environment such as the measurement of gas concentration, etc.

Although SEXS shipbuilding shall thoroughly manage and supervise the purchase, installation, management, maintenance, and repair of the explosives, etc. essential for painting work in the sealed space, it is not easy to replace the worn-out explosives, etc. with new ones in order to save the expenses, and it was used as a product at the level of the general lighting fixture that does not guarantee the normal function of the explosion, and this was caused by this.

The Defendants recognized their mistakes on most of the criminal facts including the crime of occupational injury and death. Defendant P Co., Ltd. had a large-scale reduction of human resources due to restructuring, layoff, etc. due to business deterioration, etc., and had no choice but to lead to the reduction of security through circular suspension and compensation for losses caused by air reduction rather than safety. This affected the occurrence of the instant accident. The Defendants strengthened safety preventive measures immediately after the instant accident, and agreed after paying consolation money, etc. to the bereaved family members of the victims. In light of the background of the instant accident, the fault of the dead victims appears to have been partly affected by the instant accident.

However, due to the nature of the work, there is a danger that large-scale accidents, such as a nitrogen accident or explosion accident, due to excessive discharge of oil vapor, have occurred at all times, and thus, in performing painting work, the Defendants' violation of the duty to take safety measures is heavy in that they are working without checking the ventilation condition or gas emission level, etc. even though they should have paid attention to safety accidents, they did not properly check the state of ventilation or gas emission, and they were working using the aged explosion preventive lights, etc. which are not properly managed, considering the efficiency of the work more than safety than the safety, and without observing the safety rules properly.

The sentence shall be determined as ordered by taking into account all the sentencing conditions specified in the pleadings of the instant case, such as the circumstances above, the Defendants’ age, environment, position, details and degree of breach of duty, relationship with the victims, circumstances after the commission of the crime, and the following individual circumstances. To prevent recurrence, some Defendants in charge of the safety management duties of the EXE Ship shall be ordered to attend the lecture for preventing industrial accidents.

2. Individual circumstances

A. Defendant A

The Defendant, as the head of the painting team, is heavier than the degree of the Defendant’s breach of duty or responsibility in relation to the special escape of the instant case. The Defendant, prior to the instant case, has no record of punishment, except for punishment for a fine imposed once due to drinking driving. The Defendant is deeply against his mistake through a long-term detention life.

B. Defendant B

The Defendant cannot be deemed as the head of the production support team in charge of the management, etc. of explosion prevention, etc., and the responsibility, etc. for the instant accident cannot be deemed to be somewhat weak. In addition to the punishment imposed by a fine for a violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act in 1995, there is no particular criminal history. The Defendant reflects his fault in depth through long-term confinement life.

C. Defendant C

The Defendant is an employer who has a direct employment relationship with the victims and is in charge of safety management, and has a large degree of responsibility or breach of duty related to the instant accident. The Defendant has no record of punishment exceeding a fine. The Defendant is deeply against his/her mistake through the long-term detention life.

D. Defendant E

The Defendant did not have any history of punishment prior to the instant case. Around May 1, 2015, the Defendant joined P Co., Ltd. and around March 2016, when he retired from EEE-ray shipbuilding office, he was in charge of the instant accident. The Defendant appears to be liable for the instant accident, such as demanding that he/she be held liable for heavy responsibilities. The Defendant is the safety and health management manager of EE-ray shipbuilding as the head of EE-ray shipbuilding office under the Occupational Safety and Health Act. In light of his/her duties and duties, the Defendant is in a position in charge of the safety and health management of EE-ray shipbuilding, and is also in a position

E. Defendant F

The Defendant did not have any record of punishment prior to the instant case. The Defendant cannot be deemed as the head of the strike of the Safety and Health Environmental Team that the degree of his/her breach of duty as a safety manager.

F. Defendant G

The Defendant has no record of being punished in excess of a fine. The Defendant was permanently stationed at the site and was well aware of the work site, and worked at the site on the day of this case. Nevertheless, the Defendant did not properly perform his/her duties, such as on-site management and supervision.

G. Defendant H

The Defendant had been punished several times prior to the instant case, and committed the crime of forging and uttering private documents in addition to the crime of occupational negligence and death. As the representative director of Q Q, the degree of breach of duty or the responsibility cannot be deemed to be negligible.15)

H. Defendant I

The Defendant has no record of being punished in excess of a fine. The Defendant is a field safety personnel and on-site workers on the day of the instant accident, and the degree of his/her breach of duty cannot be deemed to be minor.

I. Defendant J

The Defendant had no record of punishment prior to the instant case. The Defendant is the head of the division in charge of criminal administration and the person in charge of safety and health as a director and the director in charge of safety and health after the EEX-ray shipbuilding.

(j) Defendant K

The Defendant had no record of punishment prior to the instant case. The Defendant is the chief director in charge of the safety and quality quality of the EE-ray shipbuilding station and is in charge of safety and health, and the degree of responsibility or breach of duty is heavy.

(k) Defendant M

The Defendant did not have any history of punishment prior to the instant case. Although the Defendant acting in the position of director, the Defendant was well aware that the approval of work permission, etc. was made formally as a production manager at the work site of the painting team. Nevertheless, the degree of breach of duty, such as neglecting it, is not absolute.

(l) Defendant N

The Defendant did not have any record of punishment prior to the instant case. The Defendant was well aware of the fact that the Defendant did not properly purchase or maintain explosives, etc., but neglected it.

The acquittal portion

1. On August 20, 2017, at least 1:36, the summary of the facts charged (the evidence alteration of Defendant J, Defendant L, Defendant A, and Defendant 0), the Defendant L of the Safety and Health Team of the EXE (E HS) conducted an investigation into the causes, etc. of the instant accident at the police and the Busan Regional Employment and Labor Agency with respect to an explosive accident, such as paragraph 1, in the RO tank constructed at the port of S 1585 at the SE EX shipbuilding, and the KOE set up a standard work tank: The Defendant L of the EX at around 15:00 on August 21, 2017, sent to the JJ in charge of the welfare production of Defendant A, the top-tier manager of Defendant A, and then asked Defendant 2 to verify the working standard of the C.O. tank; Defendant 2 and the KO on August 21, 2017; and Defendant 2 should be stated in the standard work tank installation.

Accordingly, at around August 22, 2017, Defendant 0 submitted the above 3.O.K Equipment Installation and HOSE Adjustment Standard (385-WI-61 September 11, 2013) and the standard document number (385-WI-61) of the 20th day, according to the order of Defendant J, Defendant L, and Defendant A, 2. The 20th day after the above change from the 20th day to the 20th day, and the 1st day after the above change from the 20th day to the 1st day of the 20th day of the 2nd day of the 2nd day of the 2nd day of the 2nd day of the 2nd day of the 2nd day of the 2nd day of the 2nd day of the 2nd day of the 2nd day of the 2nd day of the 2nd day of the 2nd day of the 2nd day of the 2nd day of the 2nd day of the 2nd day of the 2nd day of the 2nd.

Accordingly, Defendant J., Defendant L, and Defendant A conspired in a successive manner to induce the Defendant to alter the evidence related to another’s criminal case by inducing the Defendant to alter the standard form related to ventilation work as above, and Defendant 0 modified the standard form related to ventilation work in accordance with the foregoing instruction.

2. Summary of the Defendants’ assertion

In light of the progress of the amendment of the work standard document, etc., the Defendants cannot be deemed to have altered the standard form related to ventilation work with the awareness that the evidence is altered. In addition, the work standard is only the evidence of Defendant 0’s criminal or disciplinary cases, not the evidence of another person’s criminal or disciplinary cases, and thus, it does not constitute a crime of alteration of evidence under the legal doctrine.

3. Determination

A. Whether the crime of evidence alteration teachers and evidence alteration is committed intentionally

1) Relevant legal principles

A prosecutor bears the burden of proving the existence of an intentional act, which is a subjective element of the crime charged, and the finding of guilt must be based on evidence with probative value sufficient to make a judge not to have any reasonable doubt. Thus, if there is no such evidence, the Defendants’ interest should be determined even if there is a doubt of guilt. Furthermore, even if there is no such evidence, the interpretation and application of penal provisions should be strict. As such, even if there are circumstances where the result of the crime is very significant and considerable motive, method, and circumstances that are likely to be criticized in the context of the crime, determining the punishment heavier in consideration of the factors unfavorable to the sentencing should not be easily acknowledged on the ground of such circumstance, and should be prudented when it is recognized (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do5355, Oct. 29, 2015). This legal doctrine can also be invoked in this case.

2) According to the evidence duly admitted and examined in the instant case, the following facts are recognized.

(A) the procedures for setting and amending working standards;

(1) As the need for a systematic establishment of the company standards that have been managed by the production team in each production team has emerged, the EXE was introduced the company’s internal computer network from around 2008 to operate the company-based Pool. Each production department organized the relevant work standards in accordance with the document format distributed by EEXS shipbuilding, and operated them in the manner of registration in the company-based Pool with the approval of the head of the team at issue, after organizing the relevant work standards in accordance with the document format distributed by EEXS shipbuilding.

(2) However, after the revision of the work standards by a person in charge at a part of the team, the company’s standard registration system was not properly operated, such as that the company-based registration system was kept in the sharing Pool used only by the pertinent team members, and the company-based standards kept by the relevant team were different. To solve this problem, the EXE shipbuilding introduced QP, a work standard electronic registration system, around January 2016, through the preparation work for the period of 2016, and made it available for anyone to peruse the work standard by registering the work standard, etc., and, at the time of the revision of the work standard, made it available for any person to make an electronic decision by disclosing the work standard form to Qms.

(3) If it is necessary to establish and revise a work standard, the person in charge of the team concerned shall prepare a work standard, and shall send it to Qms management officer upon review and final approval by the chief and team leader. Qms management officer shall operate the work standard in Qms, and when the chief and team leader completes electronic resolution, the previous work standard shall be deleted, and the work standard report which was enacted and amended shall be registered in Qms.

B) For the purpose of amending the standards for tank work, such as C.O. tank, at the time of the instant case, (i) the draft draft of the painting team manager (M, etc.), (ii) the review and approval of the quality management team, (iii) the approval of the painting team manager (Defendant 0 at the time of the instant case), the team leader (Defendant A at the time of the instant case), and (iv) the internal standard registration, etc.

C) Contents of the original working standard document in which the defendant 0 et al. altered

(1) The document stating that the Defendants are the originals of “C.O.K. LINE Installation and HOSE Adjustment Standard (hereinafter “the corresponding note”) is written only as “C.O.T.K.” (8,459 pages, 23 books 17 pages).

(2) 수사기관에 제출된 작업표준서 중에는 'C.O.TK 장비 LINE 설치 및 HOSE 정리 표준서'라는 문서명으로 작업장소란에 'ALL C.O.TK(R.O.TK, SLOP.TK 포함)'라고 기재된 문서가 있으나, 이는 김♤가 이 사건 사고 이후인 2017. 8. 21. 17:32경 생성하여 임의적으로 수정한 문서이다. 김쇼는 원래 문서에 'ALL C.O.TK'라고만 기재되어 있었는데, 위 'ALL C.O.TK'의 의미가 RO탱크, SLOP탱크를 포함하는 의미라고 판단하여 이를 임의적으로 기재한 뒤 HSE팀 김♤♤ 등에게 메일로 발송하였다고 진술하고 있다. 김♤가 임의적으로 수정한 작업표준서가 수사기관에 제출된 것으로 보인다.

(3) At present, the original of the standard document of this case has not been secured, and there is a lack of data to verify it, and it cannot be confirmed as to whether the document was written as “AL C.O.T.K” in the place of work of the original document of this case, or as to whether it was written as “C.O.T.K.” However, it seems that the original document of the standard document of this case was modified by the Defendant, etc., and it was obvious that there was no explicit standard for the ROC or SLP tank.

D) Reasons why Defendant 0 et al. change in the working standard

(1) On August 21, 2017, the day following the occurrence of the instant accident, the Defendant L sent the Defendant J, a person in charge of the performance of the instant accident, to the effect that the work standards for ventilation at the production site need to be subdivided and prepared, taking into account various factors. Accordingly, the Defendant J sent the Defendant A of the painting Team’s opinion that “the standards for the ventilation standard of the Chicago tank shall be specified and reflected in the work standards in detail.” In other words, the Defendant J sent the Kakao Stockholm message stating that “The special frequency is instructed and inspected even if the standards, such as the type of organic solvent, the tank size, etc., are determined.”

(2) On August 21, 2017, Defendant J discussed the circumstances such as the preceding accident site and the suspension of work, and the progress of work at a special meeting where the head of the team and the chief of the strike are present at around 16:25 post-production (On August 21, 2017, Defendant J discussed about the situation of the post-production (in the presence of a tower, post-chief team, painting team, trial operation team), and it was right to thoroughly discuss the preparation of the Ministry of Employment and Labor for the resumption of work, while examining the work standards related to five existing vessels, etc. at each team, and ordered the revision to prepare for the resumption of work from the Ministry of Employment and Labor to prepare for the revision to meet the standards, and the revision to the standard EX to which Defendant 4 was required to change the contents of this case’s AO.

(5) M sent 'C.O.T. K ventilation Standard' to the Defendant as the main date, and the Defendant O written 'C.O.T.K ventilation Standard' in some addition.

(6) 안전보건공단 소속 특별조사관 이♤은 2017. 8. 22. 10:00경 피고인 0을 구두 조사하는 과정에서 도장작업 환기에 관한 내용을 집중적으로 물었고, 피고인 에게 '현장의 RO 탱크 환기설비에 대한 정리된 자료가 있다면 이를 제출해 달라'는 취지로 말하였다.

(7) 피고인 은 2017. 8. 22. 13:00경 이♤에게 자신이 작성한 위 'C.O.TK 환기표 준서'를 제출하였고, 2017. 8. 24. 개정번호란에 'revl'를 추가한 'C.O.TK 환기표준서'를 경찰에 이메일로 제출하였다.

3) Whether to recognize intention

In addition to the above legal principles and the facts of recognition as follows, the evidence alone submitted by the prosecutor is insufficient to recognize the Defendants’ intentional alteration of evidence to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it otherwise.

A) The instant standard that Defendant 0 et al. revised its content is specified only as C.O. tank standards, and did not contain explicit standards for TRO tank, etc.; “AL C.O.T.K” may be deemed to include TROP tank or SLP tank. However, there was room to deem that TRO tank and SLOP tank are not included as s.O. tank separately from C.S. tank. In fact, ESE shipbuilding was operated by TROP tank or SLP tank solely on the grounds that there was a hole for inserting CRO tank and SLP tank and s.a. (a.d.).

B) Defendant 1 was investigated by the Changwon Coast Guard on August 22, 2017, after submitting the “C.O.T. K ventilation Standard Book” to the special investigator belonging to the Safety and Health Authority as above. Defendant 0 was asked by the investigator in the process of the investigation, as to whether there is a separate ventilation standards in SLOP tank and RO tank, and Defendant 1 responded to the “it is not specified in SLOP tank and RO tank” (Evidence 63 pages, 23 books of evidence records) that Defendant 2 was not installed in the 3rd Chang Coast Guard on September 2, 2017. According to the RO tank work standards, Defendant A was not subject to an inquiry by the investigator in the process of the investigation, it is difficult to view that the 3rd vessel was installed in the 1st KM tank, and that the 2nd vessel of the 3rd vessel was installed in the 1st vessel of the 1st vessel of the 1st vessel of the 1st vessel of the 1st vessel of the 2nd vessel of the 3th vessel of the 3th vessel.

D) According to the police statement, the investigator asked the defendant whether he has requested the relevant data or whether there is a working standard for ventilation equipment operation at the accident site, and there is no reference document, and C.O. tank ventilation standards are applied mutatis mutandis to the C.O. tank operation standards, and the RO. tank operation standards are applied mutatis mutandis to the case. Accordingly, upon the request to bring the pertinent data after the investigation, all the defendants responded to the statement of the defendant 0:30 on the same day. This is consistent with the statement of the defendant 0.). The investigator asked the defendant that he has the authority to prepare the work standard or participate in the preparation of the work standard. The defendant L, J and A also stated that it is difficult to consider that he does not have any explicit opinion or to supplement the content that he does not conform to the standards, rather than changing the contents of the evidence that the defendant L, J and A expressed to the defendant.

F) Since the instant case, there was an explicit working standard for the ROP tank and SLP tank separate from C.O. tank.

G) At the time of the preparation of the document under the title “C.O.T. K ventilation Standard” by Defendant or M, the appraisal was made to the effect that: (a) the explosion cause of the instant accident occurred in the RO tank, (b) two Rara, and (c) one Rara does not properly call the instant accident; (b) Defendant 0 did not have any motive for preparing “C.O.T.K ventilation Standard” with the intent to alter the evidence beyond the meaning of amending the regulations as to unclear parts.

B. Whether the crime of altering evidence was established

1) Relevant legal principles

The crime of destroying evidence is established when the evidence in a criminal or disciplinary case of another person is destroyed. If the defendant destroys the material that would be evidence for the remaining one's own interest by preventing him/her from being subject to criminal or disciplinary punishment, such act may not be subject to the crime of destroying evidence in a criminal or disciplinary case of another accomplice at the same time, even if the act results in destroying evidence in a criminal or disciplinary case of the other accomplice. Meanwhile, in the case of destroying evidence, the criminal or disciplinary case of another person includes even where the act of destroying evidence may still be a criminal or disciplinary case even before the investigation or disciplinary procedure is commenced at the time of the act of destroying evidence (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Do5329, Nov. 28, 2013). Even if the criminal case was not prosecuted or acquitted, it does not affect the establishment of the crime of forging evidence (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Do15986, Feb. 10, 2011).

2) Determination

Even if it is assumed that the Defendants had the intent to alter evidence, considering the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by this court, it is difficult to view that the alteration of evidence recorded in the facts charged constitutes a case where the evidence concerning another person’s criminal or disciplinary case was altered.

A) DefendantO was affiliated with the seal team, such as Defendant A and M, whose occupational negligence was recognized in relation to the instant accident. Defendant A was in the position to be directly responsible for the painting work at the time of the instant accident, as the head of the strike of the special painting of the seal team. Although Defendant 0 was on the leave at the time of the instant accident, there was room for Defendant A to be responsible for the instant crime of occupational negligence resulting in death in light of the position or duty that Defendant 0 was on the leave at the time of the instant accident.

B) At the time, the production support team, painting team, and head of the HSE team were suspected of being a co-principal of occupational injury or death, and the actual Defendant 0 was investigated by the investigation agency on the charge of occupational injury or death.

C) At the time of the instant accident, M, as the director of the painting team, vicariously performed the duties of Defendant O (chief) as an agent, is found guilty. However, M also participated in preparing “C.O.T. K ventilation Standard” as seen earlier. Ultimately, M is bound to be deemed to be in the position of co-principal with Defendant. In light of this, “C.O.T.K ventilation Standard” prepared by Defendant 0 and M cannot be deemed as evidence for another person’s criminal or disciplinary cases.

D) The prosecutor asserts to the effect that M is not in the principal offender’s status, since the prosecutor altered evidence using M as the tool that he knew of this circumstance.

M, however, at an investigative agency, stated that “0 vice head talks with the author, but Kim vice-head was that the team leader was so doing. The author also stated that he was not able to be able to obtain instructions while revising and complying with the instructions.” In light of the contents of the aforementioned statement, M’s position, work contents, etc., it is difficult to view that M was able to modify the work standard without knowledge of the circumstances and to revise the work standard. Defendant 0’s instructions are free activities.

It is difficult to regard it as an order of workplace workers who have no room.

4. Conclusion

The charges of the alteration of evidence against Defendant A, J, L, andO, and the charges of the alteration of evidence fall under the case where there is no proof of criminal facts as seen earlier, thereby not guilty under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Judges Lee Jeong-hee

(i) the quality of the safety and health team, including the safety and health environmental team having jurisdiction over the duties of safety and health in the S SS shipbuilding yard;

Three teams, such as a special vessel production team, are composed of three teams, and the defendant K is a person who exercises overall control over the safety quality.

2) The latter production means the latter half of the shipbuilding process of a vessel, and the seal team having jurisdiction over the painting work of the instant RO tank.

(1) The Government shall organize five teams, including Section 5, of the Loading Team, the trial operation team, the follow-up operation team, and the follow-up operation team, and the defendant shall administer the production of the follow-up.

is a manager.

3) Special painting dries using paints (pins, paints, cins, and pins) containing inflammable gas in ship tanks.

Does used for the work are inflammable objects and are inflammable due to large amounts of inflammable gas in the process of painting.

It is a dangerous work in which explosion accidents may occur if the source of s and fires come into contact.

4) C.O. tank (CARGK) is a space for transporting cargo of a ship.

5) The ROC tank is a sealed space where oil sludge separated from other tanks are collected.

6) The so-called 'Iba' is also called 'Iba'.

7) On August 7, 2017, foreign workers who were paintinged in S1585 Vessel C.O.T.K. on August 7, 2017

As a result, an accident that was sent to a hospital occurred.

8) On August 7, 2017, the cause of the accident occurred as of August 7, 2017, “it is not easy to conduct all schooling and habiting.” The probability of the occurrence of the accident.

The contents of personal inspection, management and supervision of high temperature workplaces, safety education for workers, etc. are confirmed.

9) Products made of rubber or solid containers, etc. in order to maintain strawing, watering and smuggling;

100 100 100 100 100

10) Fully by filling in or inserting in any cresheal material or any other cresheal creshes, etc., and raising water and air secrecy.

Closed-shielded articles

11) Industrial standards under Article 12 (Korean Industrial Standards) of the Industrial Standardization Act are Korean Industrial Standards (KS) and pressures under Korean Industrial Standards.

The explosion-preventive structure contains parts that can extinguish explosive atmosphere in accordance with the KS Standards (KS C 60079-1) and explosive mixing.

Even if an internal explosion of a joint property occurs, the explosion pressure may be drumd and the outer width (the part enclosed with the reduction of fire fighters) shall be breadth around the joint property

It has a function to prevent explosion from spreading into the sexual atmosphere.

12) In the part of the prosecutor’s revocation of the prosecution, “exploiting materials sealed and disposed of while repairing and using the explosions installed in the RO tank.”

It is reasonable to see that the measures were not taken and the part was also included in the crime. Therefore, it was excluded from the crime.

13) The application of penal provisions under Articles 66-2 and 23(1) of the Industrial Safety and Health Act is 'business owner' and 'private as defined in the above Act.

state of business refers to a person who operates a business by employing a worker (see Article 2 subparagraph 3 of the same Act), in this case:

The owner of the business is not the defendant C, who is the chief director of the special hosting industry, which is a corporate defendant (Supreme Court Decision 94Do4 delivered on May 24, 1994).

Article 71 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act (see Supreme Court Decision 660 delivered on July 1, 200).

(2) If a person commits a violation under each of the above provisions, not only shall such violator be punished, but also the corporation shall be punished by the penal provisions of each

The joint penal provisions are provided for in this section, and the offender who is not a business owner under such joint penal provisions shall also be punished in each section against the business owner.

Accordingly, Defendant C is the representative of Defendant D Co., Ltd., the business owner, and Article 71 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act.

Pursuant to Articles 66-2 and 23(1) of the same Act, the penal provisions provided for in Articles 66-2 and 23(1) may be applicable (Supreme Court Decision 9 September 29, 201).

See Supreme Court Decision 2009Do12515, supra. This is likewise applicable to the application of the provisions on the violation of the Occupational Safety and Health Act to Defendant E.

14) Defendant C is a worker’s death due to nonperformance of the duty to take safety measures. Defendant E is a contractor’s employee.

Only a failure to meet the obligation to prevent industrial accidents

15) The purport that the Defendant’s negligence on the part of P Co., Ltd., which did not pay Songmak was the direct cause of the instant death.

Of course, the possibility of the victims' survival could have occurred if the Songmast could have been paid. However, Busan Local Employment Union

According to the report (Evidence Nos. 1, 335, 23 books) as a result of a serious accident investigation in the preparation of the Changwon District Office, the site of this case shall be the site of this case.

It seems that the place of business is not the duty to wear air-lineliness prescribed by the rules on occupational safety and health standards, etc.

The sole fact that payment was not made does not constitute a violation of the Occupational Safety and Health Act. Therefore, the content of breach of duty

In addition, it is difficult to consider in sentencing.

16) SLOP tank means a tank that can be kept in a mixture of oil and sea water after tank mining.