Defendant 1 and two others

Prosecutor

He/she shall be subject to prosecution (prosecution), corrective (public trial)

Attorney Kim Byung-hee

Chuncheon District Court Decision 2011Ma414 decided October 25, 2012

All appeals are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As to Defendant 1 and 2's occupational injury or death

The judgment of the court below which acquitted Defendant 1 and 2 of the occupational negligence or death caused by the fall of Nonindicted Party 1's occupational negligence, even if the causal relationship between the Defendants' occupational negligence and the death caused by the fall of Nonindicted Party 1 and Nonindicted Party 1 is acknowledged, on the ground that there is little possibility that Nonindicted Party 1 could have crashed on the part of the cargo loaded on the cargo vehicle without the involvement of external factors, and Defendant 1 had shocked Nonindicted Party 1, or divided Defendant 1 by the scam with the scam and lost the balance. Thus, the judgment of the court below which acquitted Defendant 1 and 2 of the occupational negligence or death caused by the fall of Nonindicted Party 1.

B. As to the violation of the Occupational Safety and Health Act against Defendant 2 and Defendant 3

Nonindicted 1 and Defendant 2 and Defendant 3 Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Co., Ltd.”) did not take necessary measures to prevent danger at the work site, on the ground that they merely correspond to workers who carried out the business of advertising for cargo vehicles along with Defendant 1, but cannot be seen as “inducator” as prescribed in Article 177 of the Rules on Industrial Safety and Security. Thus, the lower court acquitted Defendant 1 on the violation of the Occupational Safety and Health Act against the above Defendants on the ground that it did not take necessary measures to prevent danger at the work site. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending

2. Determination

A. As to occupational death

Before discussing Defendant 1’s negligence, it should be found that Nonindicted 1 was the causes of fall above the above loading. In full view of all the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence adopted and examined by the court below, namely, the chemical elements of the paint detected in the safety appearance of Nonindicted 1 and the chemical elements of the paint detected in the marcule, Defendant 1 stated in the investigative agency that Nonindicted 1 could not be seen as moving from the above loading space; Defendant 1 stated that Nonindicted 1 could not be seen as being moving from the above loading space; Nonindicted 1’s autopsy on Nonindicted 1 was found to have caused two damage by a strong external power, which served almost immediately in the front part of the autopsy of Nonindicted 1; Nonindicted 1 was shocked by the marcule operated by Defendant 1 or by the incidental operation of Defendant 1, it cannot be concluded that Nonindicted 1’s failure to maintain balance.

Therefore, it cannot be deemed that Defendant 1’s negligence, which operated the male and the right and the left well, caused Nonindicted 1 to fall off to the floor by taking the head of Nonindicted 1, who was on the male box of the freight vehicle as indicated in the facts charged, or Defendant 1’s negligence, which caused Nonindicted 1 to fall off to the floor by making Nonindicted 1, who was on the male on the male of the above male while operating the male without checking the safe unloading or moving to a safe place on the male board of the freight vehicle, and caused Nonindicted 1 to fall off to the floor by neglecting the center, and it cannot be deemed that Defendant 2 did not take necessary measures to prevent the danger, such as posting the person responsible for the work at the work site, etc., and caused the death of Nonindicted 1 to fall on the male and die on the male of the freight vehicle.

The judgment of the court below to the same purport is just, and the prosecutor's assertion is without merit.

B. As to the violation of the Occupational Safety and Health Act

The lower court determined otherwise on the ground that it is difficult to view that the Defendant Company failed to take necessary measures to prevent hazards on the job site on the ground that Nonindicted Party 1’s being given and received a water signal with Defendant 1, a driver of the vehicle, in order to coordinate the direction and height of the mix, and assist Defendant 1 in carrying the waste so that it can be seen that the Defendant Company placed Nonindicted Party 1 on the cargo vehicle with the guide of the macker.

A thorough examination of the evidence adopted and investigated by the court below and the Industrial Safety and Health Ordinance, the above determination by the court below is justified, and there is no misapprehension of legal principles. Non-indicted 1's assertion that the prosecutor's office needs another leader for the non-indicted 1 who is only the person who helps the normal work and who is exposed to the danger of contact at the normal work.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the prosecutor's appeal is without merit, and it is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Lee Jae-soo (Presiding Judge)