logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원 2017.11.22 2017고단3965
산업안전보건법위반
Text

The Defendants are not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the Defendants is published.

Reasons

1. The summary of the facts charged of this case is the representative director of the company B located in Nam-gu Incheon Metropolitan City, who is responsible for safety and health for preventing industrial accidents by its employees. Defendant B is a corporation with the purpose of installing elevators and repairing elevators.

(a) Where the maintenance, cleaning, oil supply, inspection, replacement, or adjustment work of machinery, transportation machinery, construction machinery, etc., or any other similar work is likely to cause danger to workers, Defendant A’s owner shall stop the operation of the relevant machinery;

Nevertheless, around 10:33 on April 7, 2016, the Defendant: (a) ordered G to perform the internal repair work of the escalator in Jung-gu Incheon, Jung-gu, Incheon; (b) did not stop the operation of the above escalator through the method of blocking all parts; and (c) thereby, the Defendant operated the above escalator, thereby having the body flow of G put in the egotra upper part on July 31, 2016, and caused G’s death by multiple prolonged electric power lines, etc. at the I hospital located in H in Nam-gu, Incheon, Nam-gu, Incheon.

As a result, the Defendant did not take necessary measures to prevent the danger of workers and caused G death.

B. Defendant B Co., Ltd. did not take necessary measures to prevent the risk of workers as set forth in paragraph (a) in relation to the Defendant’s duties at the same time and at the same place as described in paragraph (a) and caused the death of the employee.

2. Determination

A. Article 23(1) of the Industrial Safety and Health Act provides for an employer’s duty to take measures for safety, and Article 71 of the same Act provides that an employer may be punished even in cases where a violation is committed by a person who is not an employer. Thus, the employer’s violation of Articles 67 subparag. 1 and 23(3) of the same Act is operated by himself/herself.

arrow