[1] The case holding that the construction company of a bridge was guilty of occupational injury, occupational traffic obstruction, occupational decristion, occupational decristion, etc. for public officials supervising the construction of a bridge, etc. in the bridge collapse accident

[2] The concept of "damage and damage" in occupational interference with general traffic

[3] The case holding that a person is subject to "occupational negligence" under Article 189 (2) of the former Criminal Code

[4] The number of crimes of obstruction of general traffic by occupational negligence and obstruction of automobile traffic by destroying bridges through occupational negligence and fall of the automobile as a result thereof, and the relation between obstruction of general traffic by occupational negligence and deprivation of automobile by occupational negligence

[5] Whether a co-principal was established by negligence in the collapse of a bridge (affirmative)

[6] The requirements for competition of independent acts

[7] The starting point of the statute of limitations for occupational injury and death

[1] The case holding that the construction company of a bridge, the field supervision of a bridge construction site, and the construction supervision official of the ordering agency, etc. shall be convicted of occupational injury, occupational injury, general traffic obstruction, occupational injury, and occupational injury, etc.

[2] Damage and damage stipulated by Articles 189(2) and 185 of the former Criminal Code (amended by Act No. 5057 of Dec. 29, 195) refers to physical destruction and loss of utility. Thus, it is included in the concept of "damage and Damage" that collapses due to defective production and defective construction at the time of the construction of the sexual intercourse.

[3] The case holding that since the subject of "occupational negligence" under Article 189 (2) of the former Criminal Code (amended by Act No. 5057 of Dec. 29, 1995) should be a person engaged directly or indirectly in the "business of participating in traffic flow" such as train, electric car, automobile, ship, aircraft, or other general public, and since sexual traffic is a bridge constructed for the main purpose of traffic of vehicles, it constitutes a person who is indirectly related to "business of participating in traffic flow" at the time of construction

[4] In a case where a bridge is destroyed by occupational negligence to obstruct the traffic of an automobile and to fall the automobile as a result, the crime of obstruction of general traffic by occupational negligence as prescribed in Articles 189(2) and 185 of the former Criminal Act and the crime of obstruction of general traffic by occupational negligence as prescribed in Articles 189(2) and 187 of the same Act is established, and each of the above crimes is in a commercial concurrent relationship as prescribed in Article 40 of the Criminal Act.

[5] In order for a bridge such as a pedestrian bridge to maintain its lifespan, the condition of thorough construction by the constructor and thorough maintenance and management by the public officials in charge of supervision, maintenance and management in the manufacture and construction of the supervisory officials is to be met. Thus, even if the negligence in each of the above stages is not the cause of collapse, it can be easily anticipated that the bridge might collapse if the bridge is combined, and therefore, the party involved in the above stages may not be held liable for the collapse unless there are special circumstances, such as where there is no fault or negligence, but there is no cause of the bridge collapse.

[6] In principle, if two or more persons simultaneously commit an act meeting the requirements for the formation of a crime without liaison with each other, each person shall be prosecuted. However, if the act which caused the result is uncertain, each person shall be punished as an attempted crime (a competition with independent act). In the case of a concurrent act and in particular, in the case of an injury, it shall be punished as a joint principal offender according to the examples of joint principal offenders. Thus, if a mutual communication with one another exists and a joint principal offender is established, there is no room to see the problem such as the concurrence of independent acts.

[7] It is reasonable to interpret "criminal act" as stipulated in Article 252 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, which provides for the starting point of the statute of limitations as to the starting point of the statute of limitations, to the effect that the criminal act also includes the result of the criminal act in question. As such, the statute of limitations for the crime of occupational failure or death in case of a bridge collapse accident, the crime of general traffic obstruction by occupational negligence, and the crime of an occupational failure or death in the occupational negligence shall also be deemed to run

[1] Articles 185, 187, 189, and 268 of the former Criminal Act (amended by Act No. 5057 of Dec. 29, 1995), Article 323 of the Criminal Procedure Act / [2] Article 185 of the former Criminal Act (amended by Act No. 5057 of Dec. 29, 1995) / [3] Article 189 (2) of the former Criminal Act (amended by Act No. 5057 of Dec. 29, 1995) / [4] Articles 185, 187, and 189 (2) of the former Criminal Act (amended by Act No. 5057 of Dec. 29, 1995) / [5] Article 30 of the Criminal Act / [6] Article 192 (1) of the Criminal Act

[1] [5] Supreme Court Decision 97Do1741 delivered on November 28, 1997 (Gong1998Sang, 191) / [6] Supreme Court Decision 85Do1892 delivered on December 10, 1985 (Gong1986, 280) / [7] Supreme Court Decision 94Do35 delivered on March 22, 1994 (Gong1994Sang, 137) 96Do1231 delivered on August 23, 196 (Gong196Ha, 2937)

Defendant 1 and four others

Defendants

Attorney Lee Jae-chul et al.

Seoul District Court Decision 95No2918 delivered on June 11, 1997

All appeals are dismissed. 150 days out of the number of detention days after the appeal shall be included in the original sentence against Defendant 2.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the defendants' defense counsel and the grounds of appeal Nos. 3 and 4 concerning the grounds of the collapse of the bridge (if the supplemental appellate brief was not timely submitted by the defendants 2 and 5, to the extent of supplement)

A. As to occupational negligence and causation part

According to the reasoning of the judgment below and the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court below, the court below held that the collapse accident of the bridge of this case occurred by the defendants' occupational negligence as follows, and there is a proximate causal relation between the negligence and the above collapse accident.

이 사건 교량은 교각 위에 앵커트러스(Anchor Truss)를 설치한 후 앵커트러스에 캔틸레버트러스(Cantilever Truss. 이하 씨트러스라고만 한다)를 가설하고 양 교각의 씨트러스 사이에 서스펜디드트러스(Suspended Truss. 이하 에스트러스라고만 한다)를 달아매는 방식으로 가설하는 이른바 게르버트러스(Gerber Truss) 공법을 사용한 교량이다. 이러한 게르버트러스공법에 의한 교량은 이른바 단재하경로구조(single-load-path structure. 수직재나 핀 등 중요 부재 중의 하나라도 파단되는 경우 바로 붕괴로 이어지는 구조)로서, 하중이 용접과 볼트, 핀 등에 의하여 연결되는 철강재로 지탱되는 특성이 있어 트러스를 구성하는 각 부재의 용접이나 부재 상호간의 연결의 적정 여부가 교량의 역학구조에 결정적인 영향을 미칠 뿐만 아니라 특히 교량에 부과되는 하중이 에스트러스의 수직재에 집중되기 때문에 수직재를 설계도면과 특별시방서에 따라 정밀하게 제작하고 시공하는 것이 중요하다. 이 사건 교량은 1977. 4. 9. 착공되어 1979. 10. 15. 완공되었으나 1994. 10. 21. 07:30경 제5번과 제6번 교각 사이의 에스트러스의 수직재가 끊어져 붕괴되어 한강으로 떨어지는 사고가 발생하였는바 여기에는 다음과 같은 여러 원인이 겹쳐 있다. 이 사건 교량의 시공을 맡은 동아건설 주식회사 부평공장의 당시 기술담당 상무이사인 피고인 5와 같은 공장의 철구부장인 원심 공동피고인 박효수는, 이 사건 트러스를 설계도대로 정밀하게 제작하도록 지휘·감독할 직접적이고 구체적인 업무상의 주의의무가 있음에도 불구하고, 설계도면상으로는 수직재 하부에만 엑스(X)자형 용접으로 표시되어 있으나 그 상부에 엑스표시를 하지 않았다고 하더라도 상부와 하부는 구조가 동일하고 트러스 제작 당시 적용되었던 특별시방서에 완전 용접을 하도록 요구하고 있고 건설부의 용접강도로교표준시방서에도 응집력이 집중되는 용접 부위는 당연히 각 용접 부분을 브이(V)자형으로 개선한 후 이를 맞대어 완전 용접하도록 되어있으므로 수직재의 용접 부위를 엑스자형 용접으로 개선하여 용접하게 하는 등 트러스의 제작에 참여하는 자들을 제대로 지휘·감독하지 못함으로써, 아이(I)자형 용접을 하면서 용접도 양쪽을 각 1회씩만 하고 이를 충분히 하지 않아 용입부족 등으로 용접불량이 되게 하였고, 더욱이 당시 부평공장에는 용접공이 부족하여 일부를 외부 용접공에 하도급주어 트러스 제작에 투입하는바 일반적으로 외부 용접공의 기량이 부평공장의 용접공에 비하여 떨어지는 경우가 있음에도 이들에 대해 무리하게 트러스 제작 공기 단축을 독려하고 감독을 소홀히 하여 위와 같은 부실용접을 방치하였으며, 핀플레이트(Pin plate) 강판(상현재와 핀으로 연결하는 부분)을 절삭함에 있어서도 설계도대로 1:10으로 완만하게 절삭하지 아니하고 1:2.5 내지 1:3 정도의 급경사로 제작하여 추가적인 응력집중현상을 초래하게 하였으며, 트러스의 유재나 가로보, 브레이싱(Bracing) 등 각 부재도 설계도대로 정밀하게 제작되지 아니한 채 부재의 볼트구멍의 위치나 크기, 간격을 규격에 맞지 않게 제작하였으며, 제작 후에는 시공상태와 같은 모양으로 가조립을 하지 아니하고 트러스를 출고되게 하였다. 그리고 당시 동아건설 주식회사의 현장소장인 피고인 2은, 당시 기술사 자격이 있는 공소외 1이 현장대리인으로 선임되어 있기는 하였으나 그는 성수대교 시공현장에 거의 나타나지 아니하여 행정적인 업무뿐만 아니라 공사에 관한 기술적 지휘·감독을 하여야 하므로, 시공하는 교량의 공법과 구조 등을 숙지하여 공사를 지휘하고 시공에 사용되는 자재의 재질이나 규격이 설계도대로 제작되어 정확한지 여부 등을 최종적으로 확인·점검할 의무가 있고 또한 현장소장에게 요구되는 통상의 주의를 기울였다면 이 사건 트러스의 제작상의 잘못을 발견할 수 있었음에도 불구하고, 핀플레이트 강판을 설계도대로 절삭하지 아니하고 급경사를 이루도록 제작된 것을 발견하지 못하고 이를 교량가설에 사용토록 하였고, 브레이싱과 가로보 등 트러스 일부 부재의 볼트의 구멍의 위치가 일치하지 않아 허용오차를 초과하여 볼트구멍을 다시 천공하거나 확장하거나 일부 연결부에는 설계도보다 적은 2개 내지 4개의 볼트만을 체결하여 시공되게 하였으며 가로보 끝 부분에 철근을 덧대어 용접하는 등의 시공상의 잘못을 방치하게 하였다. 한편 당시 이 사건 교량건설에 대한 발주청인 서울특별시의 현장감독공무원이었던 피고인 1, 3, 4는, 이 사건 교량이 국내 최초로 건설하는 게르버트러스공법에 의하여 건설되는 것이고 위 공법의 핵심은 트러스의 제작 및 가설이고 트러스의 제작에 있어서는 설계도에 따른 강재의 정밀한 절단 및 용접, 가설시에는 각 부재의 정확한 조립 및 연결이 요구되므로, 트러스를 제작함에 있어 특별시방서상 요구되는 자격을 갖춘 용접공이 용접을 실시하는지 여부, 각 트러스가 설계도면 및 특별시방서대로 용접, 제작, 조립되는지 여부 등을 확인하되 특히 에스트러스의 수직재를 제작함에 있어 핀플레이트 강판 접합 부분이 1:10의 완만한 경사로 깎아졌는지, 용접 부분을 엑스형으로 개선하고 용접하였는지 여부 등을 육안 및 방사선검사 등을 통하여 확인하고, 트러스의 제작완료 후에는 가조립을 실시하였는지 여부를 확인하는 등 현장감독을 철저히 할 구체적인 주의의무가 있음에도 불구하고 용접공의 자격확인, 방사선검사 등을 통한 용접공사, 가조립공사, 시공과정에서의 철저한 현장확인 등을 하지 아니하였다. 피고인들의 위에서 본 제작, 시공, 감독상의 여러 가지 과실과 원심 판시의 공소외 2 등 동부건설사업소 및 서울특별시 도로국 공무원들의 중차량 통행방치, 철강재 부식, 부적절한 수직재 고정 및 안전진단조치 불이행 등 유지·관리상의 과실 그리고 제1심 판시와 같은 설계상의 잘못이 겹쳐져서, 트러스 가설 후 교량 제5번과 제6번 교각 사이 에스트러스 북쪽 연결 부분에 있는 3개의 수직재의 용접 부분이 떨어져 나가 위 수직재들의 복부판에 균열이 생겨 끊어지기 시작하여 일시미상경 중앙부 에스트러스의 수직재 균열 부분이 먼저 끊어진 후 1994. 10. 21. 07:30경 한강 상류쪽 수직재, 한강 하류쪽 수직재 순으로 그 균열 부분이 완전히 끊어지고 이어 같은 트러스의 남쪽 연결 부분에 있는 3개의 수직재도 연쇄적으로 끊어져 같은 트러스를 포함한 상판 일체가 한강으로 떨어지면서 때마침 그 곳을 지나던 자동차 6대도 한강으로 떨어졌다.

In light of the records, the above fact-finding and decision of the court below are acceptable, and there is no error of law such as incomplete deliberation or misconception of facts due to violation of the rules of evidence, occupational injury or death, occupational obstruction and occupational traffic obstruction, or misapprehension of the legal principles as to the scope of duties or occupational duty of care or causation in the occupational accident, and there is a somewhat inappropriate expression in the explanation method of the court below, but it is hard to see that there is an error of law as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

(1) Of the facts charged against Defendant 5, the lower court found that there was no specific part of the charges of this case, such as street or balping, and found that there was no more specific V vis-vis-vis-vis-vis-vis-vis-vis-vis-vis-vis-vis-vis-vis-vis-vis-vis-vis-vis-vis-vis-vis-vis-vis-vis-vis-vis-vis-vis-vis-vis-vis-vis-vis-vis-vis-vis-vis-vis-vis-vis-vis-vis-vis-vis-vis-vis-vis-vis-vis-vis-vis-vis-vis-vis-vis-vis-vis-vis-vis-vis-vis-vis-vis-vis-vis-vis-vis-vis-vis-vis-vis-vis-vis-vis-vis-vis-vis-vis-vis-vis-vis-vis-vis-vis-vis-vis-vis-vis-vis-vis-vis-vis-vis-vis-vis-vis-vis-vis-vis-vis-vis-vis-vis-vis-vis-vis-vis-vis-vis-vis-vis-vis-vis-vis-vis.

All the grounds of appeal on this cannot be accepted.

B. As to the predictability and expectation

According to the records, as recognized in paragraph (a) above, the sexual bridge of this case is constructed by the so-called Roberlers construction method and the load imposed on the bridge of this case is concentrated, and one of the important absences such as vertical materials and pin, is collapsed immediately. Even though the Defendants did not know such characteristics, in light of the Defendants’ academic background and experience as shown in the records, as long as the nature of the bridge is generally connected with the lower part of the bridge, it would be sufficiently known that the appropriateness of the connection between the lower part and the absence of the bridge would have a significant impact on the structure of the bridge, and the possibility of construction, supervision, and supervision of the above Defendants would have been sufficiently acknowledged, and the construction and supervision of the bridge of this case would have been likely to have been carried out as a result of the construction and management of the bridge of this case.

The judgment of the court below to the same purport is just, and there is no error of law by misapprehending the legal principles on mistake, predictability, and expectation due to a violation of the rules of evidence as otherwise alleged in the grounds of appeal. The grounds of appeal pointing this out are not acceptable

2. Judgment on the ground of appeal by misapprehending the legal principles as to defendant Lee Jong-dae and Shin Dong-dong's counsel on occupational traffic obstruction and occupational motor vehicle drilling

A. As to the requirement of "damage and Damage to General Traffic Obstruction"

Article 189(2) and Article 185 of the former Criminal Code refers to physical destruction and loss of utility of "a form of conduct through occupational interference" in Article 189(2) and Article 185 of the former Criminal Code. Thus, the collapse of the instant Arrsts due to defective production and defective construction at the time of the construction of Arsts of sexual intercourse shall be deemed to be included in the concept of "damage and Damage" under the above Article.

The first ground for appeal on a different premise is a mere independent opinion, and thus cannot be accepted.

B. As to the subject of occupational negligence

The subject of ‘occupational negligence' under Article 189(2) of the former Criminal Code shall be a person engaged directly or indirectly in the 'business of participating in traffic traffic', such as a train, electric car, automobile, ship, aircraft, or other general public, and since the 'business of this case' is a bridge constructed for the main purpose of traffic such as a vehicle, etc., it shall not be deemed that the 'business of Defendant 2, 5 degrees involved in traffic traffic' is an indirect related person at the time of construction.

Therefore, in the case of the above defendants who are merely constructed a bridge to be provided for traffic traffic traffic, the grounds of appeal that the defendants cannot be the subject of "occupational negligence" under the above Article cannot be accepted.

C. As to the receipt of a crime

In a case where a bridge is damaged by negligence in the course of business to obstruct the traffic of an automobile and fall the result thereof, the crime of obstruction of general traffic by negligence in the course of business under Articles 189(2) and 185 of the former Criminal Act and the crime of obstruction of traffic by negligence in the course of business under Articles 189(2) and 187 of the same Act shall be established. Each of the above crimes shall be deemed to be in a commercial competition relationship under Article 40 of the Criminal Act.

The judgment of the court below to the same purport is just, and there is no error of law by misapprehending the legal principles as to the relation of the crime of obstruction of general traffic by occupational negligence and the relation of acceptance of the crime of obstruction of traffic by occupational negligence, as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.

3. Judgment on the grounds of appeal by the defendants 2 and 5 as to the defendants' defense counsel, impossible attempts, and concurrence of independent acts as to the co-principal of the crime of negligence

A. As to co-principal

In order for a bridge, such as a sexual bridge of this case, to maintain its lifespan, the conditions should be met, such as the complete construction by the constructor and the thorough maintenance and management by the public officials in charge of supervision, maintenance and management in the manufacture and construction of the supervisory officials. Thus, even if the negligence in each of the above stages cannot be the cause of collapse, it can be easily anticipated that the bridge might collapse if it is combined, and therefore, the person involved in the above stages can not be held liable for joint responsibility for the collapse unless there are special circumstances, such as where there is no negligence or negligence at all, but there is no cause of the bridge collapse.

In the case of this case, the defendants are found to have been negligent in the production, construction and supervision, and supervision of supervisors' negligence was combined with the causes of the accident of this case, and on the other hand, the defendants should have a joint objective and communication with the intent that the sexual intercourse of this case should be constructed safely. Thus, the relationship between the defendants with the joint principal of the crime of occupational injury, etc. of this case should be deemed to have been established as to the crime of occupational injury, etc. of this case.

The judgment of the court below to the same purport is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to joint principal offenders, as otherwise alleged in the grounds of appeal. The grounds of appeal on this point are not acceptable.

B. As to an impossible attempt

As seen earlier, since the above Defendants’ negligence in the maintenance and management of the bridge was combined with that of public officials in charge of the production, construction, supervision, and supervision, and the maintenance and management of the above Defendants’ negligence in the production, construction, and supervision, and the collapse of the bridge in this case occurred, it is evident that the above Defendants’ negligence in the nature of the above Defendants’ negligence cannot be deemed as a case where the occurrence of the result of the above bridge collapse is impossible, and therefore, the above Defendants’ act cannot be deemed as an impossible attempted crime.

The judgment of the court below to the same purport is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to impossible attempted crimes as otherwise alleged in the grounds of appeal. The grounds of appeal on this point cannot be accepted.

C. As to the competition of independent acts

In principle, when two or more persons have committed an act that meets the requirements for organizing a crime at the same time without liaison with each other, each person shall be punished as an attempted crime (a competition with an independent act). However, when the act that caused the result is uncertain, each person shall be punished as an attempted crime (a competition with an independent act). In the case of a concurrent act and in particular, in accordance with the examples of a joint principal offender, inasmuch as a mutual communication with a mutual doctor is established, there is no room for a problem such as the concurrence of independent acts (see Supreme Court Decision 85Do1892, Dec. 10, 1985).

In the case of this case, as seen earlier, insofar as the defendants are recognized as joint principal offenders of the crime of occupational negligence, general traffic obstruction, and crime of occupational negligence, there is no room for the conflict of independent acts.

In addition, as seen earlier, the collapse of this case occurred since the Defendants’ negligence in the production, construction and supervision and the fault in the maintenance and management of the public officials in charge of the maintenance and management of Seoul Metropolitan Government, such as Nonindicted 2, etc., were combined, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the act that caused the result was not proven.

The judgment of the court below that made such a conclusion is just, and it is not erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the concurrence of independent acts, as otherwise alleged in the grounds of appeal. The grounds of appeal pointing this out are not acceptable.

4. Determination on the Defendants’ defense counsel and Defendant 4’s grounds of appeal on the statute of limitations

It is reasonable to interpret to the effect that "criminal act" as stipulated in Article 252 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, which provides for the starting point of the statute of limitations, includes the result of the criminal act concerned (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 94Do35, Mar. 22, 1994; 96Do1231, Aug. 23, 1996). As such, the statute of limitations for the crime of occupational injury or death, general traffic obstruction, and occupational injury or death shall also be deemed to run from the time when the crime is completed due to the collapse of the accident in this case.

In the case of this case, it is apparent that the victims had been prosecuted before the lapse of five years from October 21, 1994, which led to the death and injury, and thus, the statute of limitations for each of the crimes of this case has not expired.

The judgment below to the same purport is just and it is not erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the statute of limitations as otherwise alleged in the grounds of appeal. The grounds of appeal on this point cannot be accepted.

5. Therefore, all appeals by the Defendants are dismissed, and as to Defendant 2, part of the detention days after the appeal is included in the original sentence. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Song Jin-hun (Presiding Justice)