logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원 2016.09.22 2015노2159
업무상과실치상
Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of two million won.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

Reasons

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts) is as follows, and there is no substantial relation between the defendant's act and the accident of this case, so the defendant was negligent.

subsection (b) of this section.

Nevertheless, since the court below recognized the defendant's crime of occupational injury and injury, the court below erred by misunderstanding the facts.

2. In the trial of the trial of the party, the prosecutor applied for the change of the person who was prosecuted on March 1, 200, and this court permitted the change of the person who was prosecuted.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is no longer maintained in this respect.

However, in the above case, the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts is still meaningful, and this is examined below.

3. Judgment on the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts

A. The Defendant, as a representative C of the facts charged, is a field manager who subcontracted the construction of a new building in Daegu-gu E, under a subcontract with F for steel bars and concrete construction works.

On June 9, 2014, the Defendant completed steel bars and concrete works at the construction site at the above site at around 13:00 and completed the work of carrying out materials, such as pipes used in the construction, a pipe of approximately 100 is combining each pipe, and the Defendant was carrying 5 tons of 5 tons of the victim G (48 years old) on the cargo vehicles using crafs.

In such a case, the defendant has a duty of care to keep each pipe solid by using a sweak and robbery that are likely to sweakly and sweet each pipe in the course of cutting down, loading, and cutting down each pipe, so that each pipe does not fall off.

Nevertheless, when the defendant takes out two pipes in one lump at a time without neglecting this, he uses the same snick lines as when he takes out one pipe prior to that time.

arrow