2015 Highest 1114 A. Occupational failure, etc.

B. Violation of the Occupational Safety and Health Act

1. (a) A;

2. A. B

2.3

Park Jong-chul (prosecution), Kim Jong-min (Public trial)

Attorney Kim Jong-soo and Park Jong-ho (for all the defendants),

December 30, 2015

The Defendants are not guilty.

Summary of Facts charged

1. Defendant B and Defendant A

around October 201, C decided to newly construct a 4-year factory in Gwangju-si D and contracted to F and G for the construction of the above heat plant (hereinafter referred to as the "main construction project"), F and G have completed the installation and installation of the 4-year factory in November 2013, and C had a trial operation (hereinafter referred to as the "main construction operation") for a normal factory operation from November 15, 2013.

Defendant A as a general manager of the instant project, is the general manager of safety and health management related to the instant project, and Defendant B is the supervisor of the instant project to run the instant project from the head of the team for dry Operation. The business owner should not take measures to prevent explosion or fire, such as removal of inflammable or inflammable scrap or dangerous substances in advance for dangerous substances, and for the containers such as pipes, tanks, or drums which are likely to be inflammable or inflammable, other than dangerous substances, unless he/she takes measures to prevent explosion or fire, such as removal of inflammable or inflammable scrap or dangerous substances.

Of the project, three smoke plant (factory that gives pressure to metal scrap, in liquid form) used high-tension oxygen for the removal of foreign substances on the surface of the steel board, and in the event there are inflammable substances such as maintenance portion in high voltage oxygen pipes and valves, etc. or foreign substances in high voltage, explosion by heat, etc. is likely to occur in the process of contact with high pressure oxygen in high pressure, and around May 30, 2014, three smoke plant installed in a 3stnic plant (facilities that remove foreign substances on the surface of the steel board using high pressure oxygen) was found in a valve installed in a washing system (facilities that remove foreign substances on the surface of the steel board using a high pressure plant) and installed in a 3stnic plant on June 3, 2014 (hereinafter referred to as “this valve”).

On July 1, 2014, at around 09:00, the Defendants were engaged in the work of using a oxygen stored in the oxygen (gas storage tank) for the trial operation of the scarping plant of the said 3-year plant, and around 10:10 on the same day, the Defendants were engaged in the work of raising pressure by manipulating the valves of the oxygen pipes to three on the site, such as the victim H (48 years old), the employee of the trial operation team, the victim (58 years old), and the victim K (62 years old) who is an employee of the J company.

In such cases, the Defendants, who are responsible for safety management of the trial operation team members and equipment, have the duty of care to clean up the oxygen pipes, pressure valves, etc. in danger of explosion in advance and remove foreign substances and their maintenance parts, and to educate workers who operate the pressure valves, etc. so as not to cause explosion due to rapid pressure changes, etc.

Nevertheless, the Defendants did not believe only the test results of the investigation that there is no foreign substance and no portion of maintenance on the pressure valves, and did not conduct washing on the pressure valves, and did not provide safety education to the workers who operate the valves in the oxygen so that they would operate the valves slowly.

At around 10:50 on July 1, 2014, the Defendants: (a) jointly cooperate with the foregoing occupational negligence; (b) caused the victim H to explosion in the course of contact with the high voltage oxygen near the oxygen; (c) around 18:22 on July 14, 2014, the victim H to the G Hospital located in the Northern-gu Busan Metropolitan City (Seoul Metropolitan City) caused the victim K to have the victim K remove dangerous substances, such as fire or dangerous substances, without taking preventive measures against the victim’s death or dangerous substances; (d) around 05:45 on July 17, 2014, the victim K to the end-of-life part of the removal function; (e) around 23:50 on July 20, 2014, the victim I removed the flammable of dangerous substances, such as fire or inflammable substances, and (e) at the same time, it did not cause the victim H to the death of dangerous substances other than the victim or dangerous substances.

2. Defendant C

With respect to the defendant's work, as described in Paragraph 1, the above A, an employee of the defendant, did not take measures to prevent explosion or fire, such as removal of inflammable or inflammable solids or dangerous substances, on the containers of pipes tanks, drums, etc. which are likely to be inflammable or inflammable, other than dangerous substances, and did not take measures to prevent explosion or fire, such as removal of inflammable or inflammable solids or dangerous substances, and had the victim I and H, an employee of the Co., Ltd., and caused death.

Judgment

1. The occupation of occupational death (Defendant A, B);

The prosecutor's negligence cited that the Defendants did not conduct washing work on the pressure valves of this case, and that they did not provide safety education to the victims who are workers.

In this case, first, the defendant company requested to supply the KG and the above G was supplied by the KG to the KG, and the KG was supplied by the KG, and there was no problem with the KGG. In relation to the KG, in relation to the KG, the defendant company provided Q services to the KG, and the KG did not find any particular problem with the KG. The defendant company provided the KGG to the KGF, a contractor for the project of the project of this case, and the KG provided the KG with the KG. The construction liability of the KG is in F, even if the KG is found to be maintained from the KG, in light of the type of the KG and the fact that the KG is different from the KGG, it is difficult to view that the defendants did not receive the KG and not perform the washing work, and there is no other evidence to support the defendants' negligence.

Next, in light of the following: (a) whether the Defendants did not conduct safety education so that the valves may be operated slowly, (b) the health department, the state and the water appraisal report did not stipulate the rapid operation of the valves for the cause of the instant accident; (c) the Korea Occupational Safety and Health Agency that investigated the scene at the time of the accident and made an investigation report and stated that the R&D victims employed by the Korea Occupational Safety and Health Agency would not know that the valves would have operated the valves rapidly; (d) S stated that the victims would have operated the valves 20 minutes prior to the instant accident; and (e) stated the “UTILITS equipment operation directly prepared by the above victims” as the main safety and health issues in the document “UTILS equipment operation” as the main safety and health issues (4:204 pages of the investigation record). In light of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor at the time of the accident, it is difficult to recognize that the victims H and I operated the valves rapidly, and even if there was no rapid causal causal link between the victims, it is difficult to recognize that the above Defendants were the victims’ safety pressure.

2. Violation of the Occupational Safety and Health Act (Defendant A and Defendant Company);

This part of the facts charged is that Defendant A had the victims work without taking preventive measures despite being aware of the fire or explosion risk, and according to the records, Defendant A was judged to have never known the explosion risk of this case, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, since all of the facts charged in this case constitute a case where there is no proof of crime, the judgment of innocence is rendered in accordance with the latter part of Article 325

Judges in the form of appointment