2016No1448 A. Violation of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry

(b) Occupational death;

(c) Injury by occupational negligence;

D. Violation of the Occupational Safety and Health Act

E. Violation of the Construction Technology Management Act

1.(b)(d) A

2.(a)(c) B

3.(a)(c)(d) C;

4.(a)(c) D

5.b. E;

6.b.(c)F;

7.b. G;

8.A. H Co., Ltd.

19.a.d. I Stock Company

10.e. Law Firm J

Defendant A, B, E, F, G, H Co., Ltd., J and Prosecutor

Kim Jong-J (Court Prosecution) and Kim Jong-Un (Court Trial)

1. K Law Firm (for Defendant A, B, and H Stock Company):

Attorney L, M

2. CI (for the purposes of Defendant E, F, and J.);

CJ, CK, and CL

3. Law firms (in order to Defendant G) Q;

Attorney CM, R, and CN

Seoul Southern District Court Decision 2014Ra2499 Decided July 18, 2016

November 16, 2017

The part of the judgment of the court below regarding Defendant G shall be reversed. Defendant G shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for six months: Provided, That the execution of the above sentence shall be suspended for one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive. Defendant A, B, E, F, H Co., Ltd. and the prosecutor’s appeal against Defendant A, C, D, E, F, H, H, and J shall be dismissed, respectively.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A, B, and H Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “H”), and the said Defendants together with “Defendant H, etc.”

(1) misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles

(A) Since the construction error of the extended bridge is merely a level of ordinary permission of Defendant A and B, even if Defendant A and B were not recognized as occupational negligence, and even if they were constructed according to the design, there was no greater accident or accident after the completion of the bridge. Therefore, there is no proximate causal relation between the construction error and the construction error. Therefore, Defendant A and B should be pronounced not guilty as to the death by occupational negligence, the injury by occupational negligence, and the violation of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry. Unless there is no occupational negligence of the above Defendants, Defendant H should be pronounced not guilty as to the violation of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry.

(B) Defendant A and H

Among the criminal facts in the judgment of the court below against Defendant A, the part 7.A. (1) (hereinafter referred to as “the part 1”) and the part 7.C. (1) (hereinafter referred to as “the part 2”) of the criminal facts in the judgment of the court below against Defendant H do not apply to the Occupational Safety and Health Act which provides for the ordinary safety measures obligation at a construction site as a part of the construction itself. The court below should also be acquitted of a violation of the Construction Industry Safety Act unless the court below recognizes Defendant A and H as the negligence of omitting safety review at the stage of examining structural calculation and design drawings for the construction of an extended bridge.

(2) Unreasonable sentencing

Even if the aforementioned Defendants were guilty, in light of the fact that the Defendants’ negligence is very low compared to the degree of risk inherent in the design of the expanded bridge itself, the sentence imposed by the court below on Defendant Ha et al. (in the case of Defendant A: two years of suspended sentence; three years of suspended sentence in the case of Defendant B; two years of suspended sentence in the case of imprisonment in the case of Defendant B; and fine of KRW 20 million in the case of Defendant H) is too unreasonable. (B) Defendant E, F, and J Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Defendant E et al.; hereinafter referred to as “Defendant J et al.”).

(1) misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles

(A) The cause of the instant accident by Defendant J, etc. is due to the following: (a) Defendant J, etc.: (a) the risk of the instant accident lies between the two cross-border valleys; (b) the construction error by construction error is merely a level that may occur on a regular basis when the instant bridge is actually used; and (c) Defendant J, etc. was unable to perform the construction work as the initial design; (d) there is no possibility that Defendant J, etc. might have prevented the instant accident by either immediately affecting or differently approving the construction method of the instant bridge. The construction error of the extended bridge is merely an ordinary permissible level; and (e) the construction error by the construction supervisor is impossible in the event that the construction contractor fails to report the information. The construction error of the extended bridge is not in accord with the intention of the Construction Technology Management Act and the change in the construction work by occupational negligence should also be found to have been found to have not been found to have been found to have been found to have been in violation of the duty. Accordingly, Defendant J, etc.’s occupational negligence, without having been found guilty.

(B) Even if Defendant J’s establishment of a violation of the Construction Technology Management Act against Defendant E and F, Defendant J did not neglect due care and supervision to prevent such violation. In addition, Article 41(1)1 of the former Construction Technology Management Act (amended by Act No. 11794, May 22, 2013) covers a crime against the general public during the warranty period under Article 28 of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry (amended by Act No. 11794, May 2, 2013). However, the instant accident is not within the warranty period, but the victim is not a “general person,” and Defendant J is not a “general person,” and thus, Defendant J is not liable for criminal liability as prescribed

(2) Unreasonable sentencing

(A) Defendant E, F

Defendant E was unable to receive allowances from Seoul Special Metropolitan City, but did not work in good faith until the due date, and Defendant F was employed again as an assistant supervisor to Defendant J for about four months and performed the role of vicarious performance of responsible supervision or supervision assistance on the ground that Defendant E performed the duty of assistant supervisor in W, and the victims do not want to be punished by the Defendants, and Defendant E and F are seriously against the fact that Defendant E and F suffered intentional responsibility. In light of the above, the sentence imposed by the court below (two years of suspended execution on January and June of each year) is too unreasonable.

(B) Defendant J

Defendant J has been engaged in the duty of impliedly in the Seoul Special Metropolitan City’s budget reduction and under many other malicious conditions while leaving the duty of responsible supervision in the middle, and has been subject to considerable attention and supervision to prevent illegal acts; Defendant J would be subject to a disposition of suspension of business for a considerable period of time when the conviction is finalized; Defendant J received supervision on November 4, 201; Defendant J committed most W in violation of supervision; Defendant J committed a wrongful design; Defendant J is the main cause of the instant accident; Defendant J is in a wrong design; Defendant J is in a close way to detect the negligence of employees performing the duty of supervision; Defendant J is not able to detect the negligence of Defendant J’s staff. Defendant G is unjust.

(1) misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles

Defendant G designed in line with the road design standards set by the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport. The survey of the existing bridge in this case is not subject to the Defendant G’s duties, and in particular, was demanded from the ordering place prior to the design of the extended bridge in this case to use the results of the survey used in the design of the existing bridge. Since the existing bridge was constructed in the design drawing, he believed that it was constructed in the design drawing and conducted the design using the existing data, and there was no special budget for the survey in relation to the new design, the Defendant G’s design without a new survey does not constitute Defendant G’s negligence in relation to the instant accident. The instant accident occurred due to Defendant H, etc.’s arbitrary construction of the extended bridge, unlike the design drawing, and thus, the Defendant G should be acquitted.

(2) Unreasonable sentencing

In light of the fact that the design of the extended bridge of this case was judged to have no problem by undergoing a prior review by Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Seoul Special Metropolitan City, construction works, and supervisors before the commencement of the construction, that the design standards for the reflectors were not established, that Defendant G did not receive an opportunity to correct it for about four years after the delivery of the design drawings, and that the main cause of the instant accident is in error construction, etc., the punishment sentenced by the court below (two years of suspended execution in August) is too unreasonable.

(d) A prosecutor;

(1) Error of facts (not guilty part of the reasons for Defendant A, B, C, D, E, F, and G) did not consider the wind load, vehicle collision load, etc. when calculating the structure of the coercions, but since the expanded bridge in this case was in a very large state and inside and outside of the design, Defendant G had completely obstructed the danger by taking into account all major load in accordance with the road bridge design standards, and thus, Defendant G was negligent in design. Defendant G neglected this duty of care. Defendant A, B, C, and D submitted the construction plan to the supervision at each construction stage and obtained approval. Unlike the design drawing, changing the construction method to use heavy equipment such as the slver, etc. is deemed to be the main cause of the instant accident, and thus, Defendant G’s negligence on the part of this case’s construction method was recognized as the cause of the instant accident. Thus, Defendant G’s negligence on the part of this case’s construction method was recognized as the cause of the instant extension of the construction method.

Therefore, among the judgment of the court below, there is an error of mistake in the part of acquittal of the reasons against the above defendants.

(2) Unreasonable sentencing

In light of the fact that the Defendants did not fulfill their social responsibilities while taking charge of the important duties related to the safety of the entire nation, and that the Defendants did not have any attitude that the responsibility of each accident lies in and reflects against each other, the punishment imposed by the lower court on the Defendants is too unreasonable.

2. Facts of recognition;

The following facts can be acknowledged in full view of the evidence duly admitted by the court below and the court below.

A. As a result of comparing the design details and actual construction details of the instant extended bridge, the upper slab was constructed more than 82-90 meters in preparation for the design, and approximately 55 meters in the direction of the protection wall. The concrete constructed in the upper slab was less than 14 tons in comparison with the design. On the other hand, the protection wall was built more than 0.029 tons in comparison with the design, and concrete constructed in the protection wall was more than 6.65 tons in comparison with the design.

B. The design plan of the instant construction states, “The concrete string of the instant construction works shall be continuous until the concrete in the original section is completed, and the concrete in the original section shall be completed by using the strings.” However, the construction works used concrete string equipment ( concrete slots and booms) with a weight of 16.74 tons when removing concrete in the wall.

C. The standard specification of road works states that “the construction of a protective wall must be built after removing temporary materials, such as a bridge bridge and a brupt, for the construction of a bridge.” In order to execute the construction of a bridge on the upper part of the bridge of this case, the said temporary materials, such as a bridge and a brug, have been installed over the front part of the bridge, and 78 square meters in total at intervals of 0.6m depending on the bridge of 47m from the protective wall side of the bridge, 08 tons in total (i.e., 11.26 kmf x78 tons in total), but the Si did not remove the said temporary materials prior to the construction of the protective wall.

(d) The weight of the above concrete typology equipment used by the contractor and the equivalent typology, etc., shall not be considered in designing and, at the designing stage, shall be considered to operate to the expansion bridge of this case;

A person shall be appointed.

Comparing the load that served as a bridge for the expansion of this case in the actual construction process, the following are as follows.

E. As a result of the structural interpretation of the National Institute of Scientific Investigation using the structural interpretation program to examine the structural stability of the expanded bridge of this case, it was found that the structural stability would not be secured if the design of the expanded bridge of this case is based on the design of the expanded bridge of this case, but if it is based on the actual construction, the transition of the bridge was presumed to have occurred due to the failure to secure structural stability.

F. The main contents of the results of the analysis by the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport Accident Investigation Committee responsible for the investigation of the instant accident are as follows.

On January 18, 200, it was impossible to review the stability reflecting the load clause at the time of the temporary installation on January 18, 200, and there is a possibility that bridge might be transferred during the construction due to additional load such as construction error and additional load, etc. that may occur in the construction process. 2) The structural calculation statement of the road bridge in the design phase, which is stipulated in the road bridge design standard, is not reflected in the lower court's lower court's lower court's lower court's lower court's lower court's lower court's lower court's lower court's lower court's lower court's order and collision load, etc., and thus, the safety examination on the bridge at the time of the accident and the lower part should have been conducted in the design specification at the stage of the examination of structural calculation and design drawing. In particular, it did not have been conducted in any stage of examination on the impact of a bridge for the construction, such as the slick splate for snow splate and the vehicle's impact.

2) In comparison with the design drawing and the manufacturing level, the actual constructed bridge differs between the length of the duressr and slovab, concrete slabs were also placed, and there was no adequate review of safety in this regard even though there was no unfavorable difference between the non-permanent exemption source and the installation location of the protective wall, etc. There was no proper examination of safety in this regard. In particular, the expanded V was modified during the construction, but its confirmation process was omitted.2) The result of the inspection of the construction in the process of the request for inspection and approval was approved without a measure different from the analysis of causes, even in the situation where the design contents were inconsistent with the original design content and the installation location.

(g) The main contents of the appraisal results of the instant accident of the National Institute of Scientific Investigation are as follows:

[The cause of the accident in this case] ○ Inspection and review of the accident was at the time of the completion of the construction of the protective wall in the direction of the fall, electric direction, and the installation of more than 78 floors from the aspect of the protective wall, and it is deemed that the form of the debris alteration caused by the string of the front line at the middle part of the fall bridge and the middle part of the fall bridge can be distinguished from the shape of the non-bris alteration caused by the string, and thus, the installation of the protective wall should be constructed after the removal of the protective wall at the time of the accident. However, in light of the fact that the installation of the protective wall at the time of the accident was not removed from the temporary installation of the protective wall at the time of the accident, the construction of the wall is presumed to have been locked to have a large weight of 14 tons of the upper slab, and the construction of the wall is presumed to have a large weight of 60 tons of the total weight of the wall at the time of the accident.

(1)This + structural stability is to be ensured). Considering that, when considering the weight of strings and strings which are being added in the actual construction, both of support base values in shift and strings, it is presumed that strings used at the time of the accident presumed that strings have been removed due to any other work than design and any additional load not considered at the time of design, etc., or that strings used at the time of the accident are not considered as design 13.6 tons; however, it is presumed that strings of the accident are low due to the occurrence of the accident after 50 seconds from the completion of work and the occurrence of the accident are presumed that strings have been removed due to other construction works and additional load which are not considered at the time of design, etc. (i.e., construction of a bridge, road design standards, installation and management guidelines of a bridge) and design specifications at the time of the lower court’s determination that the relevant design standards do not always coincide with the relevant design standards at the time of the first instance.

H. Meanwhile, among the “U” constructed by Defendant H under the supervision of W, the V bridge (hereinafter “existing bridge”) was completed on May 14, 2008, and around May 14, 2008, Defendant H appeared to have an error in construction, such as construction of a stever’s length is less than 5.6m in the direction outside the corner of the valley, and construction of a stever’s length is less than 2.05-2.73m in design value (3%) in the direction outside the valley, and construction of a stever’s length is less than 532m in the direction outside the valley.

3. Judgment on the mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles by Defendant G

A. As to the part of the facts charged that the survey on the existing bridge and the duty of care to be reflected in the design has been breached (hereinafter referred to as the "third part")

(1) Comprehensively taking account of various circumstances acknowledged by the court below and the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below, it can be deemed that preparing the drawings and specifications of the expanded bridge based on the existing survey result is a professional person to have fulfilled his/her duty without any demand for the payment of additional expenses, etc. for securing the result of a clear survey by the Seoul Special Metropolitan City, which is the ordering party, for the reason that the Seoul Special Metropolitan City did not set the expenses required for a new survey. Therefore, Defendant G’s occupational negligence can be sufficiently recognized.

(A) The existing bridge of this case was designed by BL from August 199 to August 200 after W completed working design to December 2004 to December 2005, 200. (B) Under the design contract of the extended bridge of this case entered into between Seoul Special Metropolitan City and W, Seoul Special Metropolitan City, the content of the business shall be based on the general principle, “survey shall be conducted in accordance with the standards for the surveying law and the public survey, and if it is necessary to use and modify and add the survey results conducted at the time of working design, supplementary survey shall be conducted.”

C) W performed the work by dividing it into the traffic areas in charge of the road sector, the field of soil and basic field in charge of the road planning, the design review, etc., the structural field in charge of bridge planning and design, the field of landscaping, the prediction of traffic demand and the current traffic status analysis, etc., and the Defendant G was a structural engineer in charge of the structural field.

(D) In general, the survey in the process of a bridge design is conducted by the designer in the area of the road as alleged by Defendant G, and the type of the road line is determined in consultation with the ordering person, and structural professional engineers are designed through structural calculation after receiving data such as the result of the survey, the road line planning, etc.

(E) However, since the instant extended bridge differs from the straight line bridge with the straight line one another, its structural characteristics are complicated, and the slabs of the existing bridge do not coincide with the strong connection structure, but rather with the combined one, it is determined that Defendant G could be able to accurately verify the current status of the existing bridge and accurately analyze and evaluate the branch strength of the extended bridge, and design the bridge through a stable public law suitable for the reflective power.

(F) Defendant G alleged that the existing survey result that the Seoul Special Metropolitan City used the existing survey result that was demanded to be utilized and that the existing bridge was constructed as a design. However, Defendant G was merely a standard line or a road line that was the basis of the determination of the type of the existing bridge, and there was no data on the construction status of the existing bridge. Defendant G as a structural professional engineer, was an expert, who was fully responsible for identifying various power factors and various variables to act on the instant extended bridge and ensuring the safety of the expanded bridge through structural calculation, and did not take all measures to confirm the exact status of the existing bridge.

(2) Meanwhile, as in the instant case, in a case where the so-called joint principal offender of the so-called crime of negligence that collapsed by negligence in the design, construction, and supervision of a bridge overlaps with each other, as a result of the instant case, if the violation of the respective duty of care was essentially contributed to the occurrence of the result, the joint liability should be held for the entire result resulting therefrom.

Defendant G, as an expert in charge of designing an extended bridge, prepared an extended bridge design map that does not reflect at all the actual status of the existing bridge and provided it to the contractor and supervisor. The negligence of Defendant G is deemed to have caused defective construction as seen above in the above facts of recognition by having the contractor construct the extended bridge in line with the current status of the existing bridge. Thus, even if Defendant G’s negligence was not a conclusive or independent cause for the accident of this case, proximate causal relation with the accident of this case is sufficiently recognized.

(3) The Defendant G’s assertion on this part is without merit.

B. Of the facts charged, the part of the charge that there is an occupational negligence omitted from an adequate safety review with respect to a situation where there is a significant difference in the ratio of reflective power to the inside and outside of a valley bridge (hereinafter referred to as "fourth part")

(1) Summary of this part of the facts charged

Defendant G is a person in charge of the design work of the extended bridge in this case, who designs the extended bridge in this case, which is a cross-border gosary work. Defendant G is obliged to design the extended bridge in such a structure that does not take place as much as possible, in consideration of the possibility of voltage by force. In this case, Defendant G has a duty of care to examine whether the construction error that may arise in the course of construction and additional load such as various installed load, etc., even if there is no physical reflective force as a result of the calculation of reflect power on the inside and outside of the bridge according to the design.

The expansion bridge of this case is designed for the following reasons: the ratio of reflect on the side effects inside and outside the valleys to 1:19, and the ratio of reflect on the side side of the valleys to 4.3tf is increased to 1:28.3.3., while the ratio of reflect on the side inside and outside the valleys to 4.3tf., the power of reflect on the side outside the valleys can occur in the construction process, and there is a little decrease in the load causing the power of the side inside the valleys due to additional load such as an error of construction and a temporary load, etc., or a small increase in the load causing the power of reflects, the construction of the bridge is designed to design a very vulnerable bridge to the side in the construction process, and thus, the appropriate safety of the situation where there is a very large number of reflect on the side effects inside and outside the valleys of the valleys.

(2) The judgment of the court below

The lower court determined, based on the opinion of the National Scientific Investigation Institute of Science and Technology, that even if the ratio of reflective power inside and outside the valleys of the bridge in the instant design and drawings is 1:10, the design and construction of the bridge is unreasonable, because it is unreasonable to design and construction of the bridge so that the other side is not less than 90% of the weight of the bridge and the other side is not limited to 10% of the weight of the bridge, and that the design and construction of the bridge is not negligent, taking into account the weight of the temporary materials to be laid down into the bridge in the construction process.

(3) Judgment of the court below

In the part of the phased analysis of the causes of the collapse of the U construction accident of this case prepared by the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport in the construction accident investigation report of this case, the appropriate review was omitted on the situation where the head of a single lecture room and four points inside and outside the valleys have a very vulnerable radius from the inside and outside of the valleys while designing the same at the design stage. On January 18, 201 of the standards for the road bridge design, it was stated to the effect that, as a result of the review of the stability reflecting the underwater clause at the temporary location on January 18, 201 of the standards for the road bridge design, the additional load, such as the construction error and various temporary load, which may occur in the construction process, may cause a small decrease in the load or a large increase in the load that causes the strength, the bridge is also used during the construction process, and the structural review (V extended section) (Evidence No. 1524 page) (Evidence record) is written to the effect that the response of the bridge of this case was designed in a state where the strength is insufficient.

However, there is no different standard for design regarding the degree of reflective ratio inside and outside the valley to ensure the stability of the bridge. Since the extended bridge was designed only to install a protective wall, there is only a reflective element inside and outside the boundary, even if there is a large reflective error, it can ensure the safety of the bridge by increasing the weight inside and outside the boundary of the embankment and strengthening the power. Defendant G was at the time of design to increase the thickness of the floor board slaber than the minimum standard for design at the time of construction and increase the thickness of the coercion more than the permissible thickness, and to verify the conditions unfavorable to the actual design drawing at the time of structural calculation, it seems that the National Science Investigation Institute was trying to calculate the structure by increasing the length of the outer side of the bridge at the time of construction and to secure the stability of the structure of the bridge at the time of construction and to obtain the expansion of the plan at the time of construction based on the numerical value of the design drawing at the time of construction (the standard for the expansion of the structure of the bridge at the time of construction).

In full view of the fact that it seems difficult to recognize the occupational negligence, which omitted appropriate safety review on the situation where there is a significant gap between the two sides of the valleys and the inside and outside side of the valleys, based on the review opinion of the National Institute of Scientific Investigation by the National Institute of Scientific Investigation, in light of the moving route and the point at which the accident occurred, it is difficult to recognize the Defendant G with the evidence alone, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Therefore, among the facts charged against Defendant G, the fourth part of the charges should be acquitted on the ground that there is no evidence to acknowledge the occupational negligence, and on the premise of the violation of the Construction Technology Management Act, since there is no evidence to prove the crime, it constitutes a case where there is no evidence to prove that the court below found the fourth part of the charges guilty on the grounds as stated in its reasoning, thereby committing an unlawful act affecting the conclusion of the judgment

4. Judgment on the misapprehension of the legal principles or misconception of facts by Defendant H, etc.

A. Common assertion of the above Defendants - The causes of the instant accident are caused by design negligence not taking into account the lower court’s lower court’s order, vehicle collision load, etc., among the winds set forth in the road crossing design standards.

(1) Comprehensively taking into account the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court and the first instance court, it is difficult to view the instant accident as a result of design negligence, which led to design negligence, which is not safe with respect to the non-defluence, as a result of the lower court’s failure to take into account the storm, the load of vehicle collision, etc., as set forth in the road intersection design standards, and rather, the contractor arbitrarily constructed the instant construction contrary to the design standards, and the supervisor neglected to verify whether the instant construction is being executed in accordance with the design drawings, etc., and thus caused the failure of the contractor and supervisor to perform his duties

(A) The expansion bridge of this case is designed in accordance with the guidelines of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation and the Korea Highway Corporation, so that structural stability can be ensured in the event that construction is conducted in accordance with the design contents. The design of the expansion bridge of this case itself is considered to have taken into account all the load and load to be considered in the design stage in accordance with the statutes and standards concerning design. There are no circumstances suggesting that the plan of the expansion bridge of this case does not meet the statutes and standards concerning design

(B) The instant accident is presumed to have been caused by the underwater depth in the direction of the defense wall. The concrete weight actually constructed on the instant extended bridge in the course of construction was approximately 14 tons or less in comparison with the design in the case of upper slabs, compared to the design, about 6.65 tons or less in comparison with the design in the case of the protection wall. Unlike the specifications which require the removal of the temporary installation for the upper slabs construction before the construction of the protection wall, the upper slabs were biased toward the direction of the protection wall. Unlike the specifications which require the removal of the temporary installation at the time of the construction of the protection wall, the heavy weight of gas projected 0.8 tons, which is not anticipated in the aspect of the protection wall, has been added to the total weight of gas projected 0.8 tons as it remains without the removal of the temporary installation at the time of the construction of the protection wall, and the design map used concrete sphere and sphere, which are not specified as the concrete typ equipment.

The weight of the above 16.74 tons of the typical equipment was an additional load, and such construction details cannot be deemed to be within the scope of the construction error that should have been considered at the design stage in light of the degree of difference between the design and the design.

(다) 국토교통부 사고조사위원회의 사고조사보고서에 가설중인 이 사건 확장 교량의 전도(붕괴)원인으로 "단순곡선교이며 4지점을 가진 단일강박스로 구성된 교량의 곡선내측 지점들에 부탄력이 발생한 것이며, 이에 의해 곡선내측 지점들이 받침을 이탈하여 곡선 외측으로 미끄러지면서 전도되었다."라고 기재되어 있고, 곡선내측 지점들에 부반력이 발생한 원인으로서 설계단계에서 작용한 부분은 단일강박스거더 양단부와 곡선 내외측에 4개 지점을 가지는 부반력에 매우 취약한 곡선교를 설계하면서 곡선 내외측의 반력이 너무 큰 편차를 가지는 상황에 대한 적절한 검토가 누락되었음. 도로교설계기준 2.1.18 「가설시 하중, 조항을 반영한 안정성을 검토하지 못하여 사고 당시의 하중단계(포장하중과 부속설비 하중을 제외한 상태)에서는 내외측 지점간의 반력 편차가 더욱 커졌음. 따라서 시공과정에서 발생가능한 시공오차 및 각종 가설하중 등과 같은 부가적 하중 등에 의해 내측지점의 정반력을 유발하는 하중이 약간만 감소하거나 (예컨대 콘크리트 바닥판의 타설 두께 감소, 부속설비의 감소 등), 부반력을 유발하는 하중이 약간만 증가하여도(예컨대, 콘크리트바닥판의 곡선외측으로 편기, 방호벽의 단면증가, 방호벽의 곡선외측으로의 편기, 시공 중 각종 가설장비의 불리한 배치 및 운영 등) 시공 중에 교량이 전도될 가능성이 있었음에도 설계단계에서 적절한 조치가 없었다는 취지와 설계단계의 구조계산서에서 도로교설계기준에서 규정하고 있는 풍하중과 원심하중, 차량충돌하중 등을 강거더 설계시 반영하지 않아 완성단계에서 실제 부반려에 대한 안전성이 부족한 설계이고, 또 도로교설계기준 2.1.18 「가설시 하중, 조항을 반영한 안정성 검토를 수행하지 아니하였다는 취지로 각 기재되어 있고, 한편 설계에 있어서 고려할 하중에 관하여 도로교설계기준 2.1.1 「하중의 종류에 "주하중(고정하 중, 활하중, 충격, 프리스트레스, 콘크리트 크리프의 영향, 콘크리트 건조수축의 영향, 토압, 수압, 부력 또는 양압력), "부하중(풍하중, 온도변화의 영향, 지진의 영향), 주하중에 상당하는 특수하중(설하중, 지반변동의 영향, 지점이 동의 영향, 파압, 원심하중), 부하중에 상당하는 특수하중(제동하중, 가설시하중, 충돌하중, 기타)"이 각 규정되어 있고, 2.1.18 「가설시 하중에 "교량 가설시에는 가설단계별 가설방법과 가설중의 구조를 고려하여 자중, 가설장비, 기자재, 바람, 지진의 영향 등 모든 재하조건에 대한 안전도 검토를 수행하여야 한다."라고 규정되어 있으나, 위 사고조사보고서에 의하더라도, 단일강박스로 구성된 교량의 곡선 내측 지점들에 부반력이 발생하여 가설중인 교량이 붕괴되었다는 것으로, 부반력의 증가요인으로 지적된 "콘크리트 바닥판의 타설 두께 감소, 부속설비의 감소", 정반력의 감소요인으로 지적된 "콘크리트바닥판의 곡선외측으로 편기, 방호벽의 단면증가, 방호벽의 곡선외측으로의 편기, 시공 중 각종 가설장비의 불리한 배치 및 운영 등"은 모두 시공에 관련된 것이어서, 설계단계에서 이러한 점까지 반영되어야 한다고 볼 만한 증거가 없으며, 국립과학수사연구원이 감리사측이 설계, 오류라고 주장하는 자료와 설계사측의 반론자료를 기초로 감리사측 주장에 대한 설계사측의 반론내용이 설계기준에 부합하는지에 관하여 검토한 결과에 의하면 원심하중은 활하중과 항상 함께 작용하고 활하중에 비해 사고교량에 미치는 영향이 작으며, 도로교설계기준(2.1.11)에 의할 때 풍하중은 활화중이 재하(하중이 교량에 (+)로 작용하는 것)될 때에 고려하지 않아도 되며, 충돌하중은 바닥판 설계시에만 고려되는 내용으로서, 전도 측면에서 충돌하중을 적용할 근거가 없으므로, 설계내용이 설계기준에 부합되지 않는다고 볼 만한 특이사항이 없다는 것이므로 결국 도로교설계기준이 규정하는 하중이 이 사건 설계에 반영되지 않았다고 볼 수 없다.

(D) As seen earlier, it is difficult to recognize that Defendant G was negligent in omitting an adequate safety review on the situation where there is a significant gap in and outside of the valleys in the design of this case.

(E) Comparing the design details of the instant extended bridge and the actual construction details, it is obvious that the error in the construction exceeds the allowable scope.

(2) Defendant H and Defendant J, etc.’s assertion on this part is without merit.

B. Defendant A and B asserted that there was no occupational negligence on the part of Defendant A and B, even if they were to be constructed according to the design drawing, they could not prevent the transition of the instant extended bridge, or there was a larger accident. Thus, the causal link between the construction error and the accident of this case cannot be recognized. In addition, even if Defendant G did not have prior knowledge of the circumstances where the existing bridge was not constructed as the design drawing, the above Defendants, who were in charge of constructing the instant extended bridge, have the duty to perform the construction in accordance with the original drawings or specifications. However, the above Defendants, who were in charge of constructing the instant extended bridge, did not construct the extended bridge without construction according to the design drawing, constructed the extended bridge with the convenience of construction in line with the existing bridge’s condition, and constructed it with the thickness, and the extended bridge was constructed with the thickness of the existing bridge, and thus, the Defendants did not have a significant influence on the installation of the said bridge’s installation by arbitrarily changing the construction size of the existing bridge’s boundary and the installation of the wall to the extent of the accident.

C. Determination as to Defendant E and F’s assertion that there was no occupational negligence

Comprehensively taking account of various circumstances recognized by the lower court and the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the trial court, Defendant E and F breached their duty of care as a supervisor, and sufficiently recognize the causal relationship between the violation of their duty of care and the instant accident. The aforementioned part of the allegation is without merit.

(1) According to Article 2 Subparag. 9 of the Construction Technology Management Act, responsible supervision refers to the execution supervision (technical guidance and inspection on quality control, construction management, pre-management, etc.) by a specialized construction-supervising firm under Article 28 of the same Act and acting as a contracting authority on behalf of the contracting authority in accordance with relevant Acts and subordinate statutes with regard to a certain construction work ordered by the contracting authority. Defendant J, etc. shall be liable for the responsibility of the responsible supervisor from November 4, 201, when it takes over the supervision, and there are circumstances such as reducing the budget of supervision, the legal liability may not affect any matter of law.

(2) As seen earlier, Defendant E and F, even though the construction of the main structure of the extension bridge was built differently from the design drawing and the installation location of the main structure, and was built to be under the load of the outer side of the valley, approved such improper construction only without properly verifying or verifying the aforementioned improper construction.

(3) On July 5, 2013, in the course of police investigation, Defendant E reviewed and approved a plan for construction of slabs of an extended bridge, which was approved by the auxiliary supervisor F. The error in the process of construction of sludge is from 10 meters to 20 meters, and the degree of error is beyond the permissible error. As above, Defendant E approved a plan for construction of a bridge protection wall on July 23, 2013. Although the construction of a bridge was conducted prior to the removal of a protective wall, it was found that the construction of a bridge was negligent in supervising the change in the size of the bridge and the protective wall. Furthermore, unlike the design drawing, even if the construction of a bridge was conducted without removing the additional work removal of the weight of 0.612km/m., the construction of a bridge was approved by the extension of the construction plan without examining any structural change in the design drawing.

(4) Defendant J, etc. asserted to the effect that it is impossible for the supervisor to find out the error in the performance of the construction works if the construction works are not reported by the Corporation because it is difficult to confirm the error by the land. However, if Defendant F used a luminous measuring device at an investigative agency, it can be easily confirmed that the luminous substance was easily discovered and that the slve thickness was less than the slve thickness among the slves, but measures to comply with the existing lecture and the slve

The statement was made that there was no special measure by referring to the description of the investigation record (1747 pages, 1748 pages, 1748).

(5) Defendant J, etc. should naturally take complementary measures after examining the structural safety of the existing bridge in the process of constructing the extended bridge, as long as the bridge was opened when the bridge was opened and the bus, etc. passed without leaving the bridge. Ultimately, the extended bridge was located in the name of the road to be installed. Thus, Defendant J, etc. may argue to the effect that there was no causation between the accident in this case and the negligence of the above Defendants. As long as Defendant J, etc. discovered that the construction of the existing bridge was done differently from the initial design in line with the construction of the extended bridge in the process of constructing the extended bridge, problems should have been raised and the construction of the extended bridge was carried out differently from the initial design. Since the above Defendants failed to undergo the examination of the aforementioned problems and safety, the opportunity to revise the existing bridge could have been entirely lost even if there was any error in the construction of the existing bridge in the process of constructing the existing bridge. Defendant J et al. was not responsible for the subsequent construction of the Defendant bridge in line with the previous construction process.

D. Judgment on the misapprehension of facts or misapprehension of legal principles as to Defendant A’s first part and Defendant H’s second part

Article 29 (1) 1 and (3) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") provides that a construction business owner whose construction cost is not less than 12 billion won among businesses conducted in the same place under a contract for a part of a project shall take measures to prevent industrial accidents that may arise when his/her employees work at the same place and his/her employees work at the same time, and that business owner shall take measures to prevent industrial accidents prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Employment and Labor, such as the installation of safety and health facilities, when his/her employees work at a place where there is a risk of industrial accidents prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Employment and Labor, such as the collapse of soil and sand, fire, explosion, fall, or fall.

On the other hand, Article 23(3) of the Act takes measures necessary to prevent risks in the places where business owners may collapse structures, etc., and where risk is anticipated in the course of performing their work, such as places where such risk is anticipated.

Article 51(4) of the Rules on the Standards for Industrial Safety Assistants (hereinafter referred to as the “Rules”) provides that the safety measures to be taken by the business owner under paragraph (3) of the same Article shall be prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Employment and Labor. The Rules on the Standards for Industrial Safety Assistants (hereinafter referred to as the “Rules”) specifically stipulate the necessary measures to be taken by the business owner to prevent risks depending on the type, etc. of the work, and Article 51 of the Rules provides that the business owner shall perform construction works in accordance with the design documents to prevent risks, such as collapse, power failure, explosion by means of earthquakes, vibration, vibration, shock, etc. from among persons with respect to structures or similar facilities, such construction works shall have been executed in accordance with the design documents, construction specifications, etc.

It is stipulated that measures should be taken to confirm whether the construction has been completed, and Article 52 subparagraph 3 of the same Act stipulates that the business owner should remove the risk of collapse, etc. in advance by assessing the safety of the structure, building, and other facilities in the case of danger of collapse, etc. due to the weight, snow, wind pressure, or other added load.

In light of the legislative purpose of the Act and the contents of Articles 67 subparag. 1 and 23(3) of the Act, in a case where a business owner fails to take necessary measures to prevent risks as prescribed in Article 23, the crime of violation is established regardless of whether the actual occurrence of a disaster occurred (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Do3700, Apr. 28, 2006).

According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below, the defendant A constructed the extended bridge of this case on the wind which is constructed according to the conditions of the existing bridge without construction according to the design drawing, and the protection wall of the extended bridge was constructed simply with a thickness, and even though the protection wall of the existing bridge is different in size from the protection wall of the existing bridge, the size of the protection wall was constructed more considerably than the design drawing and the installation location was changed arbitrarily. In full view of the above facts, the defendant A did not confirm whether the construction of the extended bridge of this case was properly constructed in accordance with the design drawing, and even if the protection wall of the extended bridge was used for the construction of the protection wall of the existing bridge, the construction site of the defendant H, who is the contractor, the construction site of the extended bridge of this case, and the safety assessment was conducted with knowledge that it was constructed well.

full recognition of the failure to take action may be made.

The circumstances alleged by Defendant A and H (in relation to the instant extended bridge construction, the construction plan was submitted to the responsible supervision at each stage of the installation of concrete strings and protective walls, and the supervision was conducted or approved) is clear that it is irrelevant to safety measures or safety assessment as prescribed by the said Act and subordinate statutes.

Defendant A and H’s allegation in this part is without merit.

E. Defendant J’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles as to the violation of the Construction Technology Management Act

(1) According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court and the trial court, the J provided regular and non-regular education to ordinary employees on matters such as safety control, quality control, prevention of defective construction, etc., and it can be acknowledged that a responsible supervisor was stationed at the construction site of the instant construction site from January 2002 to July 2012. However, the evidence submitted by Defendant J alone is insufficient to recognize that the management and supervision of Defendant E and F in charge of supervision was properly conducted during each construction process for the installation of a slab or the installation of a protection wall around July 2013, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

(2) Articles 41-2(2) and 41(1)1 of the former Construction Technology Management Act (amended by Act No. 11794, May 22, 2013) (hereinafter referred to as the “instant provision”) provide for punishing a person who causes serious damage to the major structural parts of bridges, tunnels, railroads, and other facilities prescribed by Presidential Decree by failing to faithfully perform responsible supervision, etc. due to occupational negligence or by violating the Acts and subordinate statutes on the safety of construction works. The former Construction Technology Management Act provides for punishing a person who causes serious damage to the major structural parts of bridges, tunnels, railroads, and other facilities prescribed by Presidential Decree during the warranty period of defect liability under Article 28 of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry. The legislative purpose and main subject matter of regulation

In full view of the fact that damage occurs and that it is difficult to explain the reason why the victim is the general person and the case where the worker is the worker, it is reasonable to view that the "general person" prescribed by the provision of this case should include not only the general public but also the worker (the workers who are under construction work are working in the workplace where the danger exists, and thus, the risk to workers is individually realized due to the damage of the structure, and it does not constitute a special situation, but also because the necessity of punishment is newly raised if the general person is at risk after the completion of construction work. Further, the provision of this case only provides for the warranty period of liability if the result of the violation of the above provision of this Act occurs after the completion of construction work, which constitutes a violation of construction technology management law, and the result of the infringement of construction work due to the negligence in the course of construction work, which constitutes a violation of statutory punishment, even if there is no reasonable reason to treat as a result of the infringement of construction work after the completion of construction work.

(3) The Defendant J’s allegation in this part is without merit.

5. Judgment on the prosecutor's assertion of mistake of facts

Of the facts charged in the instant case against Defendant A, B, C, D, E, F, and G, the lower court: (a) designed the extended bridge in relation to the negligence of each of the said Defendants; (b) designed the construction of the extended bridge at the completion stage by failing to reflect the wind load, load load, collision load, etc. prescribed in the standards for road bridge design at the time of designing the extended bridge; and (c) Defendant A, B, C, and D engaged in the construction of the extended bridge at the time of the accident; and (d) omitted the examination of the state of the bridge at the time of the accident and the safety of the load at the stage of the examination of the structural calculation and design drawings for the construction of the extended bridge at the time of the accident; and (d) on the construction method of the extended bridge at the beginning, the construction method by altering the construction method by using the installation method, such as the installation method, such as the installation method, such as the spice splate for the snow splate and the splate equipment, etc.

(4) Although the construction of the above bridge increased by occupational negligence in the construction process of the above bridge, the Defendants did not examine the safety of the above bridge construction work. ③ The Defendants E and F were engaged in the construction work of the extended bridge, despite the need to verify the safety of the above construction work through the review of the drawings and specifications before the construction and supervision of the extended bridge, the initial design drawing was made by means of human resources tafs in the construction process, so it is difficult to find the Defendants to have the right to construct the bridge at each stage of construction work of the above construction work, so it is difficult to find the Defendants to have the above construction work of the building work of the bridge because the construction work of the above Ministry of Construction Industry increased by occupational negligence, and the construction work of the above Ministry of Construction Industry cannot be seen as the construction work of the bridge. The construction work of the above Ministry of Construction Industry cannot be seen as the construction work of the bridge and the construction work of the above Ministry of Construction Industry. The construction work of the above Ministry of Construction Technology cannot be seen as the construction work of the bridge and the construction work of the above.

In full view of the circumstances in the reasoning of the court below acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the above judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and there is no error of law by mistake of facts alleged by the public prosecutor.

6. Determination on the assertion of unreasonable sentencing by Defendant H, Defendant J, etc. and the Prosecutor

A. Criteria for determining unreasonable sentencing

In our Criminal Procedure Act, which takes the principle of trial-oriented and directness, where there exists no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect the determination of sentencing (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015).

B. In common, the instant accident caused the collapse of the bridge under construction as a result of the overlapping performance of the designer’s duty to survey, the defective construction on the part of the contractor, and the defective supervision on the part of the supervisor, which led to the death of two workers and the serious result of the injury suffered by one worker. In the instant accident, the negligence by Defendant J, etc., in charge of the largest responsible supervision by Defendant H, the contractor, etc., was followed, and the actual state of the existing bridge was not recognized, and the negligence by Defendant G, D, and I, in charge of specific construction under the control of Defendant H, on the ground that Defendant G, who provided a different design, did not know the current state of the existing bridge, was the largest fault by Defendant G, and Defendant C, D, and I. Meanwhile, at the lower court, the victims was compensated for

C. We also examine the argument on unfair sentencing between Defendant H, Defendant H, etc. and the prosecutor’s assertion of Defendant H, etc. and the prosecutor’s assertion on unfair sentencing. There is no special circumstance or change in circumstances that may be newly considered after the sentence of the lower judgment is rendered. Defendant A, and E did not have any criminal records nor have any criminal records. Defendant H actively endeavored to recover personal and material damage after the occurrence of the instant accident. In addition, considering the factors favorable or unfavorable to the said Defendants and the reasons for the sentencing of the lower judgment, the lower court’s punishment is too heavy or it is deemed that the said Defendants and the prosecutor exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion, even if considering various circumstances asserted as the grounds for appeal, based on the following factors, including the Defendants’ age, character and behavior, environment, motive, means, and consequence of the instant crime, including favorable or unfavorable circumstances. The allegation on unfair sentencing between the said Defendants and the prosecutor is without merit.

D. Prosecutor's assertion on Defendant C, D, and I Co., Ltd.

There is no special circumstance or change in circumstances that may be newly considered after the pronouncement of the lower judgment. Defendant C has no penal power, and Defendant D has no criminal punishment exceeding the fine. In addition, considering the sentencing circumstances that appear in the records and arguments of this case including the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, criminal records, etc. as well as favorable or unfavorable circumstances in favor of the said Defendants, and the reasons for the sentencing of the lower judgment, even considering the various circumstances asserted by the Prosecutor as the grounds for appeal, the lower court’s sentence is too unfeasible and is not determined to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion. The Prosecutor’s assertion of unreasonable sentencing is without merit

7. Conclusion

Therefore, the appeal against Defendant G’s third part of the judgment of the court below, the appeal against Defendant H, Defendant J, etc., and the prosecutor’s appeal against the Defendants is without merit. Since the appeal against Defendant G’s fourth part of the judgment below is with merit, the part of the judgment below regarding Defendant G of the judgment without examining the allegation of unfair sentencing by Defendant G pursuant to Article 364(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act is reversed and it is again decided as follows (Provided, That since the judgment of the court below is accepted in part of Defendant G’s appeal and reversed, the appeal against Defendant G’s third part and the prosecutor’s appeal against Defendant G

(C) Criminal facts and summary of evidence

The criminal facts recognized by this court are as follows: (a) the criminal facts of the original judgment; (b) the records and the summary of the evidence are the same as the corresponding column of the original judgment; and (c) the criminal facts recognized by this court are cited as they are in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Application of Statutes

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

Articles 268 and 30 of the Criminal Act (the point of causing death or injury by occupational negligence), Articles 41-2(2) and 41(1)2 of the former Construction Technology Management Act (Amended by Act No. 11794, May 22, 2013); Article 30 of the Criminal Act (the point of causing death or injury by occupational negligence); Article 41-2(2) of the former Construction Technology Management Act (Amended by Act No. 11794, May 22, 2013)

1. Commercial competition;

Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act

1. Selection of punishment;

Imprisonment Selection

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

Articles 37 (former part), 38 (1) 2, and 50 of the Criminal Act

1. Suspension of execution;

Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act

Parts of innocence

1. Summary of the facts charged

As described in sub-paragraph (1) of the above 3.B.

2. Determination

As seen above 3. B. (3), since this part of the facts charged constitutes a case where there is no proof of a crime, it should be pronounced not guilty pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act. However, as long as it is found guilty of the third part of the facts charged, the crime of occupational injury, occupational injury, and occupational injury, and the crime of violation of the Construction Technology Management Act, it shall not be

The presiding judge, judge and decoration;

Judge Hong-soo,

Judges Kang Kang-hee