logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 춘천지방법원 속초지원 2020.01.08 2019고정24
산업안전보건법위반
Text

Defendants shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,500,000.

Defendant

If A does not pay the above fine, it shall be 100.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

Defendant

B A corporation is a corporation established for the purpose of operating construction equipment, etc., which is a business owner employing six workers, and the defendant A is a representative director of the defendant B corporation.

In order to prevent the danger of workers, a business owner shall conduct a prior investigation into the relevant work, the topography, topography, and geographical layers of the relevant place of work, and the status of geological layers in accordance with attached Table 4 of the Rules on Standards for Occupational Safety and Health, and prepare a work plan in consideration of the results

1. Defendant A did not prepare a work plan for concrete mixing trucks, which are construction machinery, when supplying materials to the site of “DD Corporation” constructed from June 13, 2017 to July 27, 2017.

2. Defendant B, the representative of Defendant B Co., Ltd., committed an offense falling under Article 67 subparag. 1 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act with respect to Defendant’s business as stated in paragraph (1) above.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. The suspect interrogation protocol of the defendant A by the police;

1. Each police statement of E and F;

1. Application of construction contract, construction field photographs, estimated shipment of ready-mixeds, certified transcript of register, and business registration certificate Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Article 67 subparagraph 1 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act and Article 23 (1) 1 of the same Act; Defendant B stock company chosen to impose a fine: the main sentence of Article 71 of the same Act and Article 67 of the same Act;

1. Defendant A at a workhouse: Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act;

1. Defendants of the provisional payment order: Determination on the Defendants’ assertion under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. Defendant B asserts that he did not neglect due care and supervision.

However, the representative director A of the defendant B corporation must prepare the work plan in the police for the reasons that he did not prepare the work plan.

arrow