Defendant 1 and two others

He/she has received a decoration, and his/her financial resources (public trial)

Attorney Kim Byung-hee

Defendants are not guilty.

I. Summary of the facts charged

Defendant 1 is a fixed-term employee who belongs to the competent Sinsi Facilities Management Team and works at the ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ Office located in the Sinsi-si, and Defendant 2 is a head of the competent business office of Defendant 3 Stock Company (hereinafter “Defendant Company”), who exercises overall control over and manages the safety and health of workers at the site of waste disposal work located within the said business office, and a business owner who enters into an agreement on the management and operation of the waste disposal facilities at the beginning of the place of business and the above business office, and operates the above waste disposal facilities.

1. The defendant 1 and 2's occupation or death by occupational negligence

(a) Details of business;

At around 09:00 on July 15, 201, Defendant 1 received the order from the staff of the Seocho Si Facility Management Corporation to provide support for the operation of waste parking. At around 10:30 on the same day, Defendant 1: (a) laid off the victim Nonindicted Party 1’s cargo onto the cargo side of the victim Nonindicted Party 1 (58) at the site of the incineration site of the waste disposal facilities in front of the incineration site of the above waste disposal facilities; (b) loaded the cargo boom up to approximately 500 km by manipulating the boom; and (c) loaded the cargo boom up to KRW 500 km by manipulating the boom, connected to the above brace, and the victim loaded the cargo boom, which was connected to the above brace, and then made a difference in the height of the above brace loaded on the Defendant, Defendant 1 had to divide the above brace with the height of the brace by dividing the above 300 km.

B. Violation of duty of care in the course of business (selective charges)

1) At the time, a person who operates a groud, had an occupational duty of care to safely operate the groud, after checking whether he was a person around the groud, with which he had a duty of care to safely operate the groud, and Defendant 2 was negligent in failing to take necessary measures to prevent danger, such as placing the person at the scene of loading and unloading, loading and unloading, transporting, transporting, or transporting freight, or the machinery, etc., at a place where the person at the scene is in contact with the above machinery, etc., is likely to pose a danger to the person at the site of loading and unloading, transporting, or transporting the said machinery, etc., while having a duty of care to take necessary measures to prevent danger due to defective working methods, etc., when leading the above machinery, etc., Defendant 1 was at the time, and Defendant 2 was at the time engaged in operating the groud, without examining the groud and left well, and Defendant 1 was at the bottom of the above grob below the victim.

2) At the time, a person who operates a boomer’s display does not have a platform or safety equipment to prevent people from falling on the cargo vehicle. As such, the person had an occupational duty of care to safely get off the boomed on the cargo vehicle or to move to a safe position, and to prevent the victim’s danger by falling. When a person who takes charge of safety and health at the scene of waste scatterings engages in unloading, loading, unloading, transportation, machinery, etc. using the vehicle system to the person who takes charge of the safety and health of the victim, the person at the site of the transported cargo or the machinery, etc. is at the risk of causing danger to the person at the site of the loading, unloading, transportation, etc., and at the same time, the person was at the duty of care to take necessary measures to prevent danger caused by defective working methods, etc., such as loading, unloading, transportation, etc. However, Defendant 1 did not take necessary actions to induce the victim to safely or safely move on the cargo vehicle at the site of the victim, thereby leaving the person at the site of the above operation.

(c) Death result;

After all, around 18:17 July 201, 201, Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 caused the death of the victim due to two injuries, such as the sacrife, sacrine, sacrine, sacrine, sacrine, sacrine, brain, etc., at the middle patient's rooms in Gangseo-gu, Yecheon-si, Yeung

2. Violation of the Occupational Safety and Health Act against Defendant 2

When a business owner engages in work using loading, unloading, transportation, machinery, etc., he/she has a duty of care to place a person at the site of loading, unloading, transporting cargo, or any place where a person in contact with the above machinery, etc. is likely to cause danger, while he/she has a duty of care to take necessary measures to prevent danger due to defective work methods, etc. when he/she engages in loading, unloading, transporting, etc., such as having access to workers. However, Defendant 2 did not take necessary measures to prevent danger, such as placing a person under command or guide at the work site at the time when Defendant 1 performs the work referred to in the above paragraph

3. Violation of the Occupational Safety and Health Act against Defendant Company

Defendant 2, an employee of the Defendant Company, committed an act of violating the above Paragraph 2 in relation to the duties of the Defendant Company at the date and place specified in the above Paragraph 1.

II. Sheet:

1. The defendant 1 and 2's occupation or death by occupational negligence

A. The first charge among the selective charges

In order to be found guilty of this part of the facts charged, the fact that Defendant 1 received the victim’s head by its ex officio must be recognized.

In light of the records, it can be acknowledged that the chemical ingredients of paints detected from the safety appearance used by the victim were consistent with the chemical ingredients of paints detected by Defendant 1. However, the victim, as the driver belonging to Nonindicted Co. 2, who entered into the contract of carriage with the defendant company, was a driver of the non-indicted Co. 2, who collected the wastes in addition to the transport of the wastes, and loaded the freight onto the vehicle by using the fluor, the driver was under the fluor’s fluor’s fluor’s fluor’s fluor’s fluor’s fluor’s fluor’s fluor’s fluor’s fluor’s fluor’s fluor’s fluor’s fluor’s fluor’s fluor’s fluor’s fluor’s fluor’s fluor’s fluor’s fluor’s fluor’s fluor’s fluor’s fluor’s.

B. The second charge among the selective charges

In order to be found guilty of this part of the facts charged, it should be recognized that Defendant 1 classified the waste distribution unit with its ex officio and caused the victim to lose the center.

In light of the records, Defendant 1, when the victim was crashed, can be recognized that Defendant 1 was working for the last distribution to meet the height of each distribution unit after completing the loading of all wastes. However, there is no evidence to prove the fact that the victim lost the center due to the above work (the defendant 1 consistently divided into two parts at the investigative agency and this court, and the defendant 1 stated to the effect that “the vehicle did not have any shock to scam the vehicle,” and that “the vehicle did not have any shock to scam the center due to the above work.”

2. Violation of the Occupational Safety and Health Act against Defendant 2

As seen in the following Paragraph 3, the defendant company may recognize that the defendant company placed the victim at the work site as the leader of the house at the time of the case, and there is no other evidence to prove that the defendant company did not take necessary measures to prevent the risk at the work site.

3. Violation of the Occupational Safety and Health Act against Defendant Company

Article 23 (2) of the Industrial Safety and Health Act provides that a business owner shall take necessary measures to prevent hazards caused by defective working methods, etc. in excavating, quarrying, loading, unloading, transporting, operating, dismantling, handling heavy objects, or other work. Article 174 of the Rules on Industrial Safety shall, when a business owner carries out work using the loading, unloading, transportation, machinery, etc., designate a conductor of the relevant work and have him/her carry out the work in accordance with the work plan under Article 173 (1). Article 177 of the Rules provides that a business owner may, when he/she carries out work by using the loading, unloading, transportation, machinery, etc. of the relevant vehicle or vehicle at the time of loading, unloading or transporting, and that a business owner may, when he/she carries out work by using the loading, unloading, transportation, etc. of the relevant vehicle or a person who, at the time of loading and unloading of the relevant vehicle from the time of loading and unloading of the relevant vehicle or a person who, in addition to the removal of the relevant vehicle or machinery, induce the victim to take necessary measures before loading and unloading, etc.

III. Conclusion

Thus, since the facts charged in this case constitute a case where there is no proof of facts constituting the crime, each of the defendants is acquitted under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Judges Yu Sung-sung