[1] Where a contractor bears the duty of care to take safety measures necessary for the prevention of accidents in relation to the contractor's work

[2] The case affirming the judgment below which recognized the defendant's occupational negligence as the main office and field agent of the above construction site, in case where the victim, who had been engaged in work at a construction site at a subcontracted construction site, fell and was injured by the rooftop opening.

[1] Article 268 of the Criminal Code / [2] Article 268 of the Criminal Code

[1] Supreme Court Decision 2008Do7030 decided May 28, 2009 (Gong2009Ha, 1051)

Defendant

Defendant

Law Firm Maritime Name, Attorneys Jjin-jin et al.

Jeju District Court Decision 2009No460 Decided January 14, 2010

The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

In the case of a construction contract, the contractor has no duty of care to take safety measures necessary for the prevention of accidents in connection with the contractor's work, but the contractor has a duty of care to take safety measures necessary for the prevention of accidents in special circumstances such as the contractor's duty to manage and supervise the contractor's work, or the contractor has specifically ordered and supervised the contractor's work (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Do7030, May 28, 2009, etc.).

According to the evidence duly examined by the court below and the court below, the victim was the representative director of the non-indicted 2 corporation who was subcontracted the construction of machinery and equipment from the non-indicted 1 corporation, the contractor of the construction work of this case. The defendant was the director of the construction site of this case and the field representative of the non-indicted 1 corporation. The defendant was designated as the director of the construction site of this case and the field representative of the construction site of this case and was in general command and supervision over safety and health at the construction site of this case. The defendant had conducted regular education on safety against the victim, etc. at the construction site of this case. The victim was aware that the defendant was in need of safety measures at the construction site of this case, and the defendant was in need of safety measures at the construction site of this case and was in need of safety measures at the construction site of this case. In light of the above legal principles, the safety measures plan of this case for the construction site of this case, which was prepared by the non-indicted 1 corporation, and the defendant was not aware of the accident of this case.

In the same purport, the decision of the court of first instance that affirmed the defendant's conviction is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles or the violation of the rules of evidence.

The Supreme Court precedents cited in the grounds of appeal are different from cases and are not appropriate to apply to this case.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee In-bok (Presiding Justice)