beta
Text
The judgment below
The part of the defendant A and C Corporation shall be reversed.
Defendant
A and C. The foregoing shall be acquitted, respectively.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant A and C & 1) The above Defendants complied with the duty to take safety measures provided for in Article 23(2) and (4) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act and the rules on occupational safety and health standards prepared by delegation.
Nevertheless, the court below held that the above Defendants violated the duty of the above Defendants to enter the “measures to prevent secondary accidents, such as shock by a continuously moving train, in the event that workers engaged in returning from a moving train fall from the floor to the floor,” under the premise that they were obligated to enter the work plan. In so doing, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the scope of the duty to take safety measures under Article 23 of the Industrial Safety and Health Act.
B) Even if the duty to prepare the above work plan was acknowledged to the above Defendants, it was not clearly revealed whether the victim’s death was due to “the second accident caused by the continuous operation of a train which was crashed in a mobile train.” Nevertheless, it was concluded that the victim’s death was due to neglect of duty to prepare the work plan by the above Defendants, and that this part of the facts charged was guilty. Furthermore, there was an error of law by misapprehending the legal principles on mistake of facts or causation. 2) The sentence (a fine of KRW 3 million, Defendant C Corporation: a fine of KRW 5 million) declared against the above Defendants is too unreasonable.
B. Prosecutor 1) misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles (as to the acquittal part against Defendant A and B), the lower court acquitted Defendant A of the facts resulting from occupational injury even though the lower court acknowledged Defendant A a violation of Articles 66-2 and 23(2) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending of facts or misapprehending of legal principles.