Whether the representative of the company has specific duty of care to take safety measures for cleaning oil storage tanks (negative)

The representative of the company has a general duty of care necessary for the appointment, direction, and supervision of the chief of the factory or the storage room and the chief of the oil storage tank as a person in charge of the entire factory, and there is no specific and direct duty of care to devise the safety measures required for the specific work methods and work, such as the cleaning of the non-nets of the oil storage tank.

Article 268 of the Criminal Act

Defendant

Prosecutor

Seoul Criminal Court Decision 83No1501 delivered on June 1, 1983

The appeal is dismissed.

The prosecutor's grounds of appeal are examined.

Examining the judgment of the court below and the records of a case, there is no error of law in the examination process of evidence or in the selection of evidence, and the court below held that the defendant, as a representative of the company, has a general caution required to direct and supervise the head of the factory and the beams room, who is responsible for the operation, management, and preservation of the oil storage tank, and has a specific and direct duty of care to consider specific work methods and safety measures required for work, such as cleaning of the non-nets of the oil storage tank, and there is no evidence to prove that the defendant was not guilty in the case of the above accident, and therefore, the court below's decision that acquitted the defendant on the charge is just and there is no evidence to prove the crime, and there is no error in the misapprehension of the rules of evidence or in the misapprehension of the legal principles on occupational negligence.

Therefore, the prosecutor's appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Lee Jong-soo (Presiding Justice)