logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 안산지원 2018.11.22 2018고단2598
업무상과실치사등
Text

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

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

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant is a person in charge of safety and health management responsible for matters concerning the safety and health of workers as an employer who actually runs the “D” in the members of Ansan-si.

1. Violation of the Industrial Safety and Health Act;

(a) A business owner shall maintain the floor, etc. of the workplace in a safe and clean state so as not to prevent any worker from getting out or getting out of the workplace;

Nevertheless, on March 23, 2018, the Defendant did not take a preventive measure against the pipe against the pipe by putting tin on the floor of the passage to the nearest passage of the gold process in the said D workplace.

(b) A business owner shall protect any worker by installing a hacker or an hacker with an adequate effect of cutting off, in order to prevent a hacks, in order to prevent the charging part from being cut off by having contacted or approaching the charging part of electric machinery, apparatus, or street, etc. due to work, passage, etc.;

Nevertheless, on March 23, 2018, the Defendant did not take protective measures on the charge register of the metre part at the above D’s workplace.

2. Violation of the Industrial Safety and Health Act and occupational and death or injury business operators had a duty of care to prohibit entry by persons other than the workers concerned, such as setting up a watch at a place where a lifts transport tool is likely to pose a risk to workers.

Nevertheless, at around 04:37 January 23, 2018, the Defendant did not take safety measures, such as prohibiting a person from having access to cargo lifts installed in the above DD, and due to such occupational negligence, the victim E (57 tax) who was an alternative ship operator due to the above occupational negligence, carried delivery goods to the above HV on the second floor and unloaded from the first floor to the first floor, and the damaged person who discovered the first floor of a building installed in the area around the HV stopped stopped, thereby resolving the damage.

arrow