beta
Text
Defendant
All appeals filed by A, C, Defendant D and Prosecutor are dismissed.
Reasons
1. Of the facts charged in this case, the court below found the defendant not guilty on the part of violation of the duty of care as to the death by occupational negligence and bodily injury by occupational negligence among the facts charged in this case, and convicted all of the remaining facts charged.
However, inasmuch as a prosecutor, Defendant A, C, and D appealed only the guilty part of the judgment of the court below, and did not appeal both the prosecutor and the Defendants on the acquittal part of the reasoning, the acquittal part of the reasoning based on the principle of no appeal based on the principle of no appeal and the principle of no appeal should also be judged in the trial. However, since the prosecutor, Defendant C, and the Defendants already deviate from the object of an attack and defense between the parties, it is impossible
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2004Do5014, Oct. 28, 2004; 2009Do12934, Jan. 14, 2010). Therefore, with respect to the part on acquittal, the reasoning of the lower judgment is to follow the conclusion of the lower judgment, and it is not separately determined.
2. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The imprisonment of one year imposed by the lower court by Defendant A is too unreasonable.
B. Defendant C and Defendant D1) According to the special terms and conditions of subcontract agreement concluded between Company C and Company D (Defendant C and Defendant D) in relation to occupational death and injury by occupational negligence (Defendant C and Defendant D) E and L, the term “major material” means to directly enter a building and form a building, and it does not mean the parts entered into equipment such as other workshops.
In addition, since the installation, operation, increase, and dismantling of other reporters are all the work of L, the management and supervision of other part of the workshop, which is an incidental work, shall also be performed by L.
Therefore, it is difficult to deem that the Defendants were given specific duties to manage and supervise auxiliary spores which caused the instant accident.
(b).