beta
Text
The judgment below
The violation of the Occupational Safety and Health Act due to the failure to install safety risks, etc. shall be reversed.
Reasons
1. The gist of the grounds for appeal by the prosecutor: since the defendants were to specifically instruct and supervise the workers who were engaged in the work at the construction site of this case, the defendants are obliged to take safety measures to prevent accidents in relation to the construction of this case.
Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
2. The prosecutor of the ancillary charge maintains the existing facts charged against the Defendants in the trial room as the primary facts charged, and applies for the amendment of indictment by adding the contents as stated in Article 68 subparag. 3 and Article 29(3) of the former Industrial Safety and Health Act (Act No. 14788) to the facts charged, as stated in Article 68 subparag. 3 and Article 29(3) of the former Industrial Safety and Health Act (Act No. 1478).
However, since the prosecutor's argument of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles on the primary facts is still subject to the judgment of this court, the court should first examine the legitimacy of the argument and then make a decision on the ancillary facts added in the trial.
3. Judgment on the grounds for appeal by the prosecutor against the primary facts charged
A. The primary facts charged (1) Defendant A is a director at the site of the Seongbuk-gu Daejeon Metropolitan City Construction Corporation, Seongbuk-gu, Daejeon Metropolitan City, which is executed by Defendant A, who is responsible for the management of safety and health affairs to prevent industrial accidents to employees belonging to the said construction site.
On May 4, 2018, the result of planning and supervision of the construction site of the Daejeon Regional Employment and Labor Agency (hereinafter referred to as the “Seoul Regional Employment and Labor Agency”) conducted on the said site, the Defendant violated the Occupational Safety and Health Act by failing to perform his/her duty to take the following safety measures:
(A) The business owner is at a place at which the workers might fall down, as the last or opening part of the work launch and passage.