1. Defendant A shall be punished by a fine of four million won.

When the defendant does not pay the above fine.

Punishment of the crime

According to the facts revealed in the records and arguments of this case, the injury suffered by the victim is deemed to have been caused by the occupational negligence of the defendants. Thus, the co-principal relationship between the defendants as stipulated in Article 30 of the Criminal Act is established, and the contents of the crime were partly revised.

Even if modified as above, it is deemed that there is no substantial disadvantage to the Defendants’ exercise of their defense rights, and without any changes in indictment.

Defendant

A is a person in charge of safety management at the construction site of Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and Defendant B is an employee of D Co., Ltd. who is the owner of the above construction site and the victim E is a person in charge of the removal work under the above A's instruction at the construction site.

Defendant

A around 08:10 on December 26, 2019, around 08:0, around 08:10, at the construction site above and around 10:0 on the king for the removal of buildings, A was engaged in the dismantling of a brupt pipe (one name: A) structure at a height of about 10 meters installed in the king for the removal of buildings.

In such cases, Defendant A has an occupational duty of care to prevent accidents, such as fall, by installing a safe scrap so as not to fall down on the floor or by checking the connection status of the rain pipe in advance. Defendant B has an occupational duty of care to thoroughly conduct safety education and prevent the fall of workers by installing a safety height, etc. at a high place of work.

Nevertheless, Defendant A did not provide safety education for workers on the part of the occupational negligence, which caused the victim who did not wear any safety equipment without installing a safety altitude for the prevention of fall and without inspecting the connection status of the non-line pipe structure to the non-speak pipe structure. The Defendant B did not provide safety education for workers.