logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 춘천지방법원 2016.08.11 2015노374
산업안전보건법위반
Text

All judgment of the court below shall be reversed.

Defendant

B Each union and J shall be punished by a fine of 5 million won.

Defendant

J. above.

Reasons

1. Summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles)

A. As to Defendant A, Defendant A knew of the fact that the safety measures were taken in the instant improvement project, while the safety measures were not supported.

B. Defendant B’s violation of the Industrial Safety and Health Act, which is the president of Defendant B’s partnership, is acknowledged, and even if the violation was not recognized, Defendant A’s violation was not recognized.

As long as Defendant J’s violation of the Industrial Safety and Health Act, which is an on-site agent for the instant rearrangement project, Defendant B’s union’s employees cannot be exempted from the liability for violation of the Industrial Safety and Health Act.

(c)

Defendant

As to the J, Defendant J did not inform the workers of other signal methods in addition to the sound in advance in the instant rearrangement project, and did not set the route and place of evacuation in advance. Therefore, Defendant J cannot be exempted from the charge of violating the Industrial Safety and Health Act.

2. Determination

A. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for ex officio appeal, the appeal case against the judgment below was consolidated by examining the judgment below ex officio, and the prosecutor applied the amended provisions under the applicable provisions of this case, and applied for amendments to the indictment with regard to changing the facts charged of this case into “a modified facts charged” below, and permitted this court.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below can no longer be maintained due to changes in the subject of the judgment.

However, the prosecutor's assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles is still subject to the judgment of this court.

(i) amended applicable legal provisions;

1. Defendant A-Articles 71, 67 subparag. 1, and 23(2) of the Industrial Safety and Health Act; Articles 405(1)1 and 406(1) and (2) of the Rules on Industrial Safety and Health; Article 30 of the Criminal Act

2. Defendant J - Articles 71, 67 subparag. 1, and 23 subparag. 2 of the Industrial Safety and Health Act, and Article 405 of the Rules on Industrial Safety and Health.

arrow