Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 4,500,000.
When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.
Punishment of the crime
On January 9, 2016, the Defendant ordered the victims C ( South and the age of 56) to dismantle a prefabricated board with the roof of a container using a shooting bridge at the construction site in Namyang-si, Namyang-si, the height of the roof is about 9 meters, and the work workers' body frequently breaking the roof with the above shooting bridge. Thus, the risk of falling into the bottom of the ground is likely to fall into the floor in the case of vain, so the on-site manager is the person responsible for the safety device, or wear the safety net or safety pents around the bridge, and installed the safety net or safety pents around the bridge, but he neglected his duty of care to prevent the fall, and thus, he did not cause damage to the victim by negligence, such as the payment of safety principles or safety pents, and the construction of safety pents, and did not cause damage to the victim: 130 vado.
As a result, the Defendant caused the injury of the victim by occupational negligence to the victim, such as cutting the body frame, cutting the body frame, cutting the body frame, etc. requiring treatment for about 10 weeks.
Summary of Evidence
1. Statement of the defendant in the third public trial protocol;
1. Statement made by the police against C;
1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to diagnostic certificates, each investigation report (D telephone surveys for witnesses, and telephone conversations for witnesses);
1. Article 268 of the Criminal Act applicable to the facts constituting an offense, Article 268 of the Criminal Act chosen a penalty, and the choice of fines
1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;
1. The portion not guilty under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, which is the order of provisional payment
1. The Defendant, from August 9, 2016 to August 20, 2016, is driving a cick vehicle and driving it on the part of the Defendant, on the ground that there is a dispute over the access road to a factory operated by the victim J in F, G, H, and I at the time of strike between F, H, and I, and the machinery and office located within the factory with the victim.