beta
Text
Defendant
The judgment of the court below against B shall be reversed, and this part of the case shall be remanded to the Seoul Central District Court Panel Division.
Reasons
1. According to the records against Defendant A, Defendant A recognized the death of May 9, 2013, which was after the public prosecutor’s filing of the appeal of this case, and thus, Defendant A is dismissed pursuant to Articles 382 and 328(1)2 of the Criminal Procedure Act.
2. As to Defendant B
A. The summary of the facts charged of this case is that "the defendant is a person in charge of the field safety of the subway construction section of this case under D. From June 2008, the construction site of this case was installed directly adjacent to the crosswalk at the H apartment distance intersection, and the above white sign on the road indicating the existing crosswalk was not completely erased, and there remains a large amount of shakings without completely deleting it. At the construction site of this case, there was a truck loaded with the HG beam beam (hereinafter "the steel beam beam of this case") at the site of this case, while the steel beam of this case was protruding onto the existing crosswalk line, the steel beam of this case was installed at the safety facilities, and only one signal number for vehicle traffic management, but did not take any other special measures, and the victim I (the victim I) of this case was able to suffer from the river beam of this case at the expense of the 5rd beam of this case."
B. citing the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, the lower court cannot be deemed to have fulfilled its duty of care to prevent safety accidents only with the installation of 3 Rabcons at the construction site of this case where the Rab beam beam, protruding with the existing crosswalk, was left alone, and where one signal number was placed, and even the victim, who illegally crossed the instant crosswalks with the existing crosswalk, was negligent in walking without properly examining the front door, and even if the occurrence of the instant accident was caused, the Defendant’s breach of duty of care is against the occurrence of the instant accident.