logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 춘천지방법원 강릉지원 2018.12.06 2018노302
산업안전보건법위반등
Text

Defendant

All A and prosecutor appeals are dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A1) misunderstanding the facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine (as to the guilty portion of the lower judgment), the Defendant set the date to conduct on-site work with the excursion ship company, which the victim worked (hereinafter “excursion ship communications”), and the instant accident occurred, and thus, the Defendant could not anticipate that the instant accident occurred by unilaterally conducting on-site work.

In addition, the damage caused the death of one victim is caused by the wire communication unilaterally while conducting the on-site work as seen above, and thus, there is a causal relationship between the negligence that the defendant did not take necessary measures to prevent risks at the construction site and the death of the victim.

shall not be deemed to exist.

2) The sentence of the lower court (an amount of KRW 4 million) that is unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.

B. Although Defendant A had a duty to take safety measures to prevent the prop from getting out at the construction site of this case, Defendant A’s failure to perform such duty and ordered workers belonging to Company B (hereinafter “B”) to work or left work without fulfilling such duty (it is unclear whether the work of the employees belonging to B was completed due to the removal of the prop Ban) constitutes a violation of the Industrial Safety and Health Act. As long as the crime was established against Defendant A, Defendant B should also be found guilty in accordance with both punishment regulations.

2. Determination

A. (1) Determination of the Prosecutor’s assertion of mistake as to the facts in the relevant legal doctrine is without taking safety measures as prescribed by the rules on occupational safety and health standards, for the business owner’s violation of Article 67 subparag. 1 and Article 23 subparag. 1 of the Industrial Safety and Health Act, with the risk of safety under Article 23(1) of the Industrial Safety and Health Act at the place of business operated by the business owner.

arrow