beta
Text
The defendant shall be innocent.
Reasons
1. The summary of the facts charged is the person in charge of the construction site C of a construction company in charge of hosting work among the construction works of the building located in Busan Seo-gu B.
At around 10:00 on October 30, 2017, the Defendant was able to anticipate that if the Defendant left the floor without breaking the bricks, etc. on the floor while cutting steel at the construction site at the above site and leaving it alone, it would be possible for the Defendant to go beyond the pedestrian. Therefore, at the construction site, the Defendant had a duty of care to arrange goods, etc. that could interfere with pedestrians and prevent accidents in advance.
Nevertheless, the defendant neglected this and removed only Rabcon installed for the prohibition of entry and left alone on the sidewalk block.
At around 13:30 on the same day from the defendant's negligence, the victim D (n, 77 years of age) was left alone at the construction site, and the victim suffered snowbrow, which requires treatment for about two weeks.
2. According to the investigation report (A) on which the defendant agreed to use as evidence, the defendant stated that he/she was the victim in the brick installed by the investigative agency that he/she exceeded the victim.
However, the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly examined by this court, i.e., ① the point where the victim exceeded (in the face of one right 5 of investigation records, two right 11 of investigation records) and the part where the defendant installed a brick with the container (in the face of two right 51 of investigation records) are not in accord with the part where the defendant installed a brick with the container (in the face of two right 51 of investigation records), ② the defendant appears to have fixed the container with the brick while installing the container with the door inside the parking lot not above the sidewalk, ③ so, it is unclear whether the brick installed by the defendant while fixing the container on the inside the parking lot is identical with the brick installed by the victim, and ④ even if the defendant installed the brick and the victim are the same.