logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원 2016.09.30 2015노3359
업무상과실치사
Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

Reasons

1. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor of the gist of the grounds for appeal, it can be acknowledged that the defendant did not inform the victim of the work rules that the defendant should remove the wall after first removing the ceiling, and if the defendant informed of the above work rules, it is obvious that the victim would not have caused any accident of death due to the death of the wall in F, the removal work of the wall under the ceiling where F was conducted. However, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant on the ground that the defendant did not have any relation between notification of the work rules of the defendant and the death of the victim, or by misapprehending the legal principles as to the relation with the person, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. On June 28, 2014, around 14:00, the Defendant: (a) received a request from D for partial removal works, including toilet division, within the south-gu C’s house located in Nam-gu, Nam-gu; (b) ordered victims E (58 years of age) and F to remove the toilet division using piracys, piracys, etc. (one name “Brek”); and (c) ordered the Defendant to remove the toilet division.

The above toilet division consists of two walls and ceilings, and there was a risk of falling concrete in the ceiling area according to the work method. Since victims and F had little experience in removing buildings, they had a duty of care to prevent safety accidents by removing the ceiling area first, and by providing safety equipment such as safety mothers that can protect the head side of the building.

Nevertheless, the Defendant did not inform the victim and E of the safety rules, such as the order of work, and did not pay safety appearance to the victim by negligence, while F was crypted by the luxal lux, and was using luxal money to the wall of the toilet.

arrow