beta
Text
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor to the gist of the grounds for appeal, the court below acquitted the victim of the facts charged in this case, although the defendant could sufficiently recognize the fact that the victim suffered bodily injury due to occupational negligence, such as not paying safety appearance to the victim, etc.
2. Determination
A. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is a construction business operator awarded a contract for a new construction of housing in South-Namnam-gun, and around September 30, 2015, the Defendant had the victim D (59 years of age) work at the same construction site and had the victim D (59 years of age) work.
In such a case, the Defendant, a construction business operator, has a duty of care to prevent risks to the life and body of one worker who falls down by taking safety measures, such as paying safety caps to the victim or providing a mobile light (one-string string string string string string strings) in which safety signs and safety rails are installed.
Nevertheless, the Defendant, by negligence, caused the victim to perform work by providing a mobile vision without paying a safety cap to the victim, where the safety tag is not installed, caused the victim to suffer bodily injury, such as the blood booming booming the victim's treatment period, and the consciousness of this, which cannot be calculated by the treatment period.
B. The judgment of the court below is based on the following circumstances, i.e., ① the victim registered as a business operator and independently operated the waterworks and sewerage pipeline installation business, ② the victim received the construction cost of the entire pipeline installation work from the defendant, not daily wage, and continued to operate the pipeline installation work at the construction site of this case; ③ the victim was employed independently by the victim, E, a father, who worked together with the victim at the time of this case, and ④ the cost of the material cost of the pipeline installation work installed by the victim.