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

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant is a person who is engaged in the operation of Clice C5C digging machines (hereinafter referred to as “clater of this case”).

On September 26, 2016, the Defendant moved the board located on the ground at the construction site located in Geumsan-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-do around 11:10 on September 26, 2016 to the roof by putting it in the so-called sclaret.

As a part of the softet is part of construction materials, there are no safety devices, the accused has a duty of care to prevent accidents in advance by not operating the softet even if he gets on the softet, and even if he gets on the softet, he has a duty of care to prevent accidents in advance.

Nevertheless, the Defendant neglected to do so and fixed up the roof of the above scamet to the victim E (54). However, the Defendant, upon the request of the victim E (54) that he would operate the above scamet while working on the above scamet while working on the above scamet, caused the victim to lose the center and fall down on the ground.

As a result, the Defendant committed an occupational negligence on the part of the victim for about 14 weeks with a scarcity in which treatment is required.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statements from witnesses E and F;

1. Statement made by the prosecution against the F;

1. A medical certificate;

1. On-site photographs;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to a report on investigation;

1. Article 268 of the Criminal Act applicable to the crimes and Article 268 of the Selection of Punishment Act;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. Determination as to the assertion by the defendant and his defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act against the provisional payment order

1. At the time of the instant accident, the gist of the claim was: (a) although there was a fact that the Defendant, at the time of the instant accident, replaced the victim with the roof eaves so that the victim can perform roof work, there was no provision stipulating that the victim shall not be a person in the excavating machine; and (b) even if there was a duty of care to pay attention.

(b)if any;