Defendant shall be punished by imprisonment without prison labor for ten months.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is a person who operates a construction machine any longer.

On January 8, 2016, at around 11:30, aggregate extraction companies located in Sejong D were engaged in the operation of dumping to earth and sand in the field of collecting aggregate within the EE Co., Ltd., and operated construction machinery to Frops owned by the said company and repeated dump trucks and repeated dump trucks were transported.

The defendant has a duty of care to check whether there is a passage to people within the radius of construction machinery due to the danger of construction machinery and to prevent accidents.

In that sense, the victim H(53 hump truck driver), who was carrying the victim H(53 hump truck driver), was in the workplace and was in the workplace, but neglected the duty of care to confirm the future landscape, and the victim did not get out of the dump truck and did not confirm his/her entrance into the workplace, and led to the death of the victim's face, etc. by negligence in the course of duty.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Each police statement made to I, A, and J;

1. Protocol of inspection;

1. A report on the occurrence of a disaster;

1. A report on internal investigation (in the situation at the time of dispatch to the scene), and a report on internal investigation ( acceptance of findings of investigation by the competent Regional Labor Agency);

1. Reporting on a survey result of a deceased person;

1. A survey report on actual conditions;

1. A corpse death certificate;

1. Written evidence of autopsy;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes concerning the site and autopsy photographs;

1. Relevant Article of the Criminal Act and Article 268 of the Criminal Act concerning the selection of punishment;

1. Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act of the Suspension of Execution (the fact that the defendant was dead and is against the defendant when committing the instant crime, the defendant was not identical to and only one time before and after having been sentenced to a fine due to the same type of crime, the victim also seems to have been negligent due to the occurrence of the instant accident or the expansion of damage, and the fact that the bereaved family members of the victim received the survivor pension and the lump-sum amount of survivor compensation according to the industrial accident compensation insurance, etc. are favorable to