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

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

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is a director in charge of management of D Co., Ltd., who is engaged in the operation of E digging machines.

At around 15:20 on November 25, 2012, the Defendant operated the above excavation search machine at the 11st Dok-gu, the 11th Dok-gu, the Haak-si, the Pakistan-si, the Pakistan-si, and continued to carry out the work of removing telegraph poles and the work of arranging communication lines.

In such a case, a person engaged in the operation of a soft machine is not subject to any safety measures to prevent the fall of workers if a worker is aboard the softet, and there is a concern that a worker will be separated from the clicket to fall, so even if the worker is not allowed to put the clicket to put the victim F (30 years of age) who is a middle company belonging to the above unit into the clicket, was divided from the above clicket and the clicket fell into the floor together with the victim.

As above, the Defendant: (a) caused the victim to fall by occupational negligence, which caused the victim to work in a scamet; and (b) caused the victim to suffer injury, such as a closed scambling which requires treatment for about three months.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Each legal statement of witness G, H, I, J, and F;

1. A copy of the opinion, and a medical certificate;

1. Application of field photographs, burner photographs, construction machinery registration certificates, copies of construction machinery registration certificates, and Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Article 268 of the Criminal Act and Article 268 of the Criminal Act concerning the crime, the choice of imprisonment without prison labor;

1. The defendant and his defense counsel's assertion of Article 62 (1) of the suspended execution of the Criminal Act against the defendant and his defense counsel, and the defendant asserts that ① the safety pin of the sofet is not existing for the safety of the persons listed in the tampet, and thus the defendant's act of not combining the safety pin in the sofet does not constitute negligence, and ② the act of not combining the safety pin in the sofet does not constitute a negligence, and

1. Regarding the argument, the Ministry of Health and Welfare.