beta
Text
The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.
Reasons
1. The Defendant is a representative director and a person responsible for safety and health management of D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “D”) located in C at the time of publication of the facts charged in the instant case.
A lifts, which is a harmful or dangerous apparatus under the Occupational Safety and Health Act, shall undergo a safety inspection conducted by the Minister of Employment and Labor, and shall undergo the first safety inspection within three years from the date on which the establishment of the workplace is completed, and shall undergo safety inspection every two years thereafter, and where the whole line connected to a lifts is cut or reduced by at least 7% in diameter, it shall be discarded and replaced with the new line.
Nevertheless, on June 2012, the Defendant violated the duty of care as seen above, and did not undergo safety inspections at once since the establishment of the lifts for cargo in D’s place of business (hereinafter “instant lifts”). The Defendant used the lifts only without replacing it, even if the diameter of the lifts 1m (8.3%) or 1m (8.3%) was reduced.
Ultimately, at around 15:40 on April 8, 2014, the Defendant: (a) committed the foregoing occupational negligence at D’s workplace; (b) around 15:40, the Defendant: (c) on board the instant lifts, the E-employee F (55 years of age); and (d) the employees G (59 years of age) of G Co., Ltd., Ltd., G (59 years of age) on board the instant lifts; and (c) the damaged e-mail during the said movement fell on the ground; (d) caused the death of the victim F by pressure; and (e) caused the victim H to suffer damage to the right e-mail requiring medical treatment for about four weeks.
2. It is recognized that the Defendant did not undergo safety inspection of the instant lifts as provided in the Occupational Safety and Health Act, and that the Defendants cut down the lines of the instant lifts as a whole or reduced the diameter of the name by at least 1m (8.3%).
However, the following circumstances acknowledged by the record, i.e., this case.