beta
Text
The judgment below
The part against the defendant shall be reversed.
Defendant shall be punished by a fine of five million won.
The defendant above.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. With respect to the defendant's occupational injury caused by the defendant's occupational injury to the victim E, the court below found the defendant not guilty on the ground that if the defendant requested an external subcontractor to dismantle the V, it is difficult to designate the conductor or notify him of the order of work, and as long as it found the defendant guilty of the victim I's occupational injury caused by a breach of the above duty of care on the ground of other breach of the duty of care, such as safety conspiracy, etc., the court below did not separately determine the violation of the above duty of care on the ground that the legal evaluation on the contents of the duty of care
However, since the Defendant had a substantial command and supervision authority to manage and control work at the time of the instant case, the Defendant was negligent in conducting business as to the victim E, and thus, the lower court acquitted the Defendant of this part of the facts charged, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
B. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on unreasonable sentencing, which found the Defendant not guilty, by imposing a fine of 4 million won on the part of the court below.
2. The following circumstances, which are acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, namely, ① the work of replacing the lusium of this case requires high level of advanced skills, and the relationship between the defendant and the head of the management office, the representative director, and the victim I, the victim I, who is not a specialized repairer, requested the work of maintaining the heavy equipment of this case, ② the victim I was managing the work site while assisting the victim E at the work site; ③ the lusium of this case, which is the defendant's operating company, is H.