[1] Whether there exists a causal relationship between the client's duty of care and breach of his duty of care and the fall accident that occurred in the course of loading and unloading the goods where the transportation of the goods, which are likely to cause danger, is requested in the course of loading and unloading on the vehicle (affirmative)

[2] In a case where a person who requested the transportation of the steel plates, which are building materials, caused a phenomenon that fire-fighting steel plates by negligence, such as cutting off and cutting steel plates using the straw strings, which is very inappropriate for combining the steel plates, and thereby the steel plates were invested in the process of unloading the steel plates from the car, the case holding that the freight driver was liable for occupational negligence resulting from the transportation requester in the course of death

[1] Article 268 of the Criminal Code / [2] Article 268 of the Criminal Code

Defendant 1 and one other

Prosecutor

Attorney Lee Im-soo

Suwon District Court Decision 2008No1974 decided April 2, 2009

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Summary of the facts charged

The summary of the facts charged of this case is as follows: at around 13:20 on June 2, 2007, the defendants were negligent in using polysphere, which is less than 0.1mm in thickness and less than 1.5cm in using polysphere, which is merely 1.5cm in width, in order to remove iron plates, which are building materials at the factory of the Hyundai Unspacker Co., Ltd. 672-1, Goyang-gu, Seoyang-gu, Seoyang-gu, 13:20, and around 5 kilometers, the defendants were loaded with 2.5 kilometers of the above iron plates, and the victims were required to temporarily cut the iron plates from the victim's steel plates to prevent the death of the iron plates from being loaded, and the victims were required to temporarily cut the iron plates and to cut the steel plates from the victim's steel plates by making them open to the factory and to cut the steel plates.

2. The judgment of the court below

After finding the facts as stated in its holding, the court below found that the cause of the accident occurred from the cargo loaded onto the cargo, while the victim was sufficiently likely to cause the fire from the steel plate by putting more than twice the load loaded onto the cargo for the reason attributable to him, and the victim is likely to cause the fire from the steel plate due to the vehicle operation error in the course, etc., so it cannot be readily concluded that the fire from the steel plate was erroneous in the fixed work of cargo. Even if the fire from the steel board was not properly fixed, the combining of the steel board is for identifying the quantity of the steel board, and then fixing the steel plate to the cargo plate with a separate wire line after the completion of the cargo-frame work of the steel board's liability, and even if it was found that the victim did not have any error in the judgment that found the Defendants not guilty of the fact that the steel plate was not loaded against the victim's fault, it cannot be ruled out that there was any error in the judgment that found the Defendants not guilty of the fact that the steel plate could not have been loaded into the steel plate.

3. Judgment of the Supreme Court

In requesting the transportation of goods which are likely to cause danger to the upper and lower process or the transport process, such as heavy weight or scarcity shape, the person has a duty of care to temporarily combine or pack the goods in accordance with the characteristics of the goods in an appropriate manner so as not to cause impediment to the transport process, etc., and in a case where an accident occurred in which the goods concerned fall during the upper and lower process of the goods by neglecting such duty of care, the proximate causal relation between the accident and the breach of such duty of care should be found.

According to the evidence, etc. adopted by the court below and the court below after lawful examination of evidence, the iron plates transported by the victim were tightly cut onto vinyl and cut off with a certain size, so it was difficult for the victim to enter the bar, and the number of the iron plates was cut off to the extent that the work implementer should wear two locks and work for them. The degree of 10 kilograms per one sheet was 10 kilograms. The steel plates integrated with the iron plates were designed to 3.5 tons of the above steel plates so that the victim can check up the load of the above steel plates, which were loaded down to the above 5 tons, and it was difficult for the victim to remove the iron plates from the steel plates to the above 3.5 tons, and it was difficult for the victim to remove the iron plates to the above 5 tons of the steel plates, and it was difficult for the victim to remove the iron plates from the steel plates to the above 2nds of the steel plates, and it was hard to see the fact that they were loaded out of the steel plates to the above 2nds of the steel plates.

Therefore, in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, the Defendants committed an error by neglecting the work of combining the steel plates in an appropriate unit to prevent the steel plates from being flown each other in the course of transportation, while requesting the transportation of the iron plates, and neglecting the work of combining the iron plates with each other, and there is a proximate causal relation between the above accidents caused the death of the victim and the violation of the duty of care and the violation of the duty of care in the steel plates.

Nevertheless, the court below found the Defendants not guilty on the above facts charged for the above reasons. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the negligence and proximate causal relation in the occupational negligence crime, or by violating the rules of evidence, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. Therefore, the ground of appeal pointing this out has merit.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Yong-dam (Presiding Justice)