beta
Text
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendant
A In the imprisonment without prison labor for one year, Defendant B, D, and E shall be punished by a fine of 7 million won, and Defendant C.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Fact-misunderstanding and legal principles 1) Defendant A merely received individual instructions when working as H’s worker, and did not have been designated as a safety manager or a field manager. Thus, Defendant A did not exercise overall control over the field management at the time of the instant fire.
2) The fire of this case first occurred from the upper part of the stroke, and there is a possibility that the fire of this case was caught by gas from the stroke or from the stroke because the strong sunlight was loaded into the stroke through the stroke, and therefore, it was proved without reasonable doubt that the fire of this case was caused by the strokes of the defendants.
shall not be deemed to exist.
3) Domestic affairs, which caused the instant fire to be caused by the Defendants’ contact with the Defendant.
Even if there is occupational negligence on the part of the Defendants
subsection (b) of this section.
B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (the amounting to KRW 10 million for Defendant A’s imprisonment without prison labor, KRW 1 year, Defendant B, D, and each fine of KRW 10 million for Defendant C, KRW 13 million) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court regarding Defendant A’s assertion of misunderstanding of the facts and legal doctrine, the lower court’s determination as to the Defendant’s assertion is based on the evidence duly admitted and examined. Defendant A entered H on March 1, 2012 and was in charge of field management duties while serving as the chief of the management department, Defendant A provided the rest of the Defendants on the day of the instant case with work instruction and safety education. Defendant C reported the occurrence of the instant fire to Defendant A, and Defendant A visited the site along with H’s officers.
In light of the above facts, Defendant A, as a person in charge of the He’s on-site management, instructs the rest of the Defendants to take appropriate measures for fire prevention.