2016.Death by occupational negligence

A person shall be appointed.

Residence

Reference domicile

Bill or ( Indictment, Public Trial)

March 25, 2016

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of two million won.

When the defendant does not pay the above fine, the defendant shall be the defendant for the period calculated by converting one million won into one day.

shall be confined in a workhouse.

In order to order the provisional payment of an amount equivalent to the above fine.

Costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

Facts of crime

The defendant has set up and managed the maintenance facilities, parking lots, etc. in the B site, as the representative director of the B corporation located in ○○ City.

On December 2014, 2014, the Defendant, who installed and managed the said parking lot, had a duty of care to prevent the safety awareness of customers visiting the maintenance facility with warning lights, signs prohibiting entry, etc. at the present place of construction.

그럼에도 불구하고 피고인은 위와 같은 업무상 주의의무를 게을리 한 채 2014 . 12 . 15 . 15 : 00경 위 B 주차장에서 , 피해자 C가 XXNXXXX호 포터 트럭을 운전하고 있었음에

Unless signboards, etc. that inform the Gu are installed due to construction works within the Do parking lot site, the victim caused injury to the victim, such as brain-proof sugar, which requires approximately two weeks of medical treatment, by leaving the truck drivened by the victim be omitted to the Gu, or omitted to the Gu.

Summary of Evidence

1. The defendant's partial statement in court;

1. Examination protocol of suspect suspect regarding D or E by the prosecution;

1. Each police statement of C, F, and G;

1. Medical certificate (the 120 pages of investigation records);

1. Photographs of the scene of the accident and the data on the photograph of the scene of the accident;

[Recognizing that the Defendant did not install a sign indicating the progress of construction or a sign prohibiting entry, etc. in the vicinity of the instant accident site, the Defendant cannot be deemed to have breached his duty of care, and the instant accident was caused by the fault of the victim entirely. The Defendant asserted that the instant accident was caused by the negligence of the victim. In other words, the damaged person cannot be deemed to have been well aware of the surrounding circumstances of the maintenance site because he merely visited the second site to the customer who requested the maintenance of the vehicle at the maintenance site, because he was merely a customer who requested the repair of the vehicle at the maintenance site, and it was difficult to secure the victim’s view due to the snow at the time of the instant accident, and the vehicle was entering the vicinity of the instant maintenance site.

In full view of the fact that there was no clear indication leading the entrance and there was no sign informing the Defendant that he will either be engaged in or be engaged in the course of the construction work in the vicinity of the construction site, and that there were many parking lots of vehicles in the vicinity of the construction site that are parked in the maintenance site, it is difficult to think that the place is not an entry into the vehicle solely on the ground that the pipe or door is loaded between the roads of the parking lot, the Defendant cannot be deemed to have fulfilled the duty of care to prevent accidents by customers entering the maintenance site, and the Defendant’s violation of the duty of care was the cause of the instant accident. Accordingly, the Defendant’s above assertion is rejected.)

Application of Statutes

1. Relevant Article of the Criminal Act and the selection of punishment for the crime;

Article 268 (Selection of Fines)

1. Detention in a workhouse;

Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act

1. Order of provisional payment;

Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. Bearing litigation costs;

Article 186(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

Judges Choi Jong-Un