beta
Text
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendant
A shall be punished by imprisonment without prison labor for six months.
However, this judgment is delivered against Defendant A.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant A and his defense counsel 1) misunderstanding of facts
(2) The lower court erred by misapprehending the fact that the Defendant was guilty, even though there was no occupational duty of care to prevent the victim from falling risk and to safely work on the roof of the above industrial company, since the victim did not know the fact that he was on the roof. (2) The lower court’s sentence (10 months without prison labor) against the Defendant of unreasonable sentencing is too unreasonable.
B. Defendant B and his defense counsel 1) In order to establish a crime of violation of the Occupational Safety and Health Act by misapprehending the legal principles, Defendant B and his defense counsel should be recognized that the Defendant instructed the victim to repair the roof wind, or neglected to examine whether the victim committed any dangerous work on the roof. As such, the lower court’s judgment convicting the Defendant without examining whether the Defendant committed any such act. In so doing, it erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the duty to take safety measures under Article 23(3) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act and failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. 2) The lower court’s imprisonment (six months of imprisonment) against the Defendant of unfair sentencing is too unreasonable.
C. The lower court’s sentence against the Defendants on the prosecutor is too unhued and unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. Defendant A’s injury by occupational negligence (1) and his defense counsel’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts is consistent from the investigation agency to this court, and the Defendant has consistently denied the charges by asserting that there was no order from the investigation agency to the victim to accept the exchange wind on the roof of the instant industrial company. The lower court also denied the charges.