beta
Text
All appeals filed by the prosecutor against the Defendants are dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. In fact-misunderstanding and legal principles, the instant construction subcontracted part of the entire business for which Defendant B transferred the factory to Non-former Tech Co., Ltd., and thus, Defendant B Co., Ltd. constitutes the business owner of “a business carried out in the same place” under Article 29(1)1 of the Industrial Safety and Health Act, which is partially awarded a contract under a separate contract.
In addition, the construction site of this case is the factory of Defendant B, and only the Defendants can take measures to prevent the danger of shock. Therefore, the failure to take the measures to cut electricity properly is the negligence of the Defendants.
Therefore, among the judgment below, each of the facts charged as to the acquittal portion of the Defendants should be found guilty.
B. As to the guilty portion of the judgment below’s unfair sentencing, the sentence of the court below (one million won by each of the Defendants) is too uneasible and unfair.
2. Determination
A. The lower court determined as to the assertion of misunderstanding the facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine, on the grounds as indicated in its reasoning, acquitted each of the Defendants on occupational safety and health violations caused by Defendant B’s violation of the duty to take safety measures, such as the installation of a board of work, and the duty to take safety measures on the work at risk of electric shock, since it is difficult to recognize Defendant B as the business owner of the “business subject to a separate contract” under Article 29(1)1 of the Industrial Safety and Health Act.
The reasoning of the judgment below's acquittal and the evidence of this case shall be examined closely, and the interpretation of the penal law shall be strict, and the interpretation of the penal law shall be excessively expanded or analogically interpreted in the direction unfavorable to the defendant is against the principle of statutoryism and is not allowed (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Do265, Jun. 2, 2006).