logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 창원지방법원 거창지원 2018.01.12 2017고정107
업무상실화
Text

Defendants shall be punished by a fine of five million won.

In the event that the Defendants did not pay the above fines, only 100,000.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

Defendant

B A is a person engaged in the business of cutting down the decline using a oxygen cutting machine at the site of removal of a building, and the defendant A is a scrap metal business operator employed by the above defendant B, etc. to exercise overall control over the safety management of the removal site.

At around 09:00 on November 29, 2016, Defendants engaged in the process of cutting up three of the disinfection equipment owned by Defendant A, which was installed at the same time, to cut off the said equipment, etc. at the mushroom cultivation plant for the victim D’s operation in Gyeongnam-gun, 2016.

In such a case, a person who uses a oxygen cutting machine has a duty of care to safely perform works to prevent fire from being caused by the operation of the oxygen cutting machine, such as checking whether there is anything that can be destroyed by a fire, spraying water sufficient to the vicinity of the removal work site in preparation for a fire, preparing fire extinguishing equipment such as a cover for the prevention of scattering, water, sand, and fire extinguishing device, and posting people who spread water after the oxygen cutting machine, etc.

Nevertheless, without such duty of care, the Defendants neglected to do so, and Defendant B did not stimulated on the wall of the said sterilization, and did not stimule water in the workplace where water was stimulated by weather, and did not stimul into the workplace where water was stimulated. They did not prepare stimulateds, water, sand, etc. stimulateds for the prevention of stimulated scattering, and they were removed by using an oxygen cutting machine even though they knew that there was no person stimulating water in the vicinity of the stimulated cutting machine. Defendant A was negligent in neglecting the work of Defendant B without taking fire prevention measures as a safety manager, and Defendant B moved the stimuls that occurred during the work of the stimulated cutting machine into the stimule of the said sterilization, and the stimuls were spreaded to the said stimul and the inner walls of the company

Ultimately, the Defendants caused a fire by negligence as above.

arrow