logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2016.06.24 2015노6966
산업안전보건법위반
Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant is innocent. The summary of this judgment shall be notified publicly.

Reasons

1. Defendant B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Co., Ltd.”) is a company providing apartment management services, and Defendant A Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “A”) is an employee of the Defendant Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Co., Ltd.”) of the lower court, who is an employee of the Defendant Co., Ltd., is an employee of the Defendant Co., Ltd., who is responsible for the safety and health of the employees working in the said apartment as a management complaint of F apartment in the

A on July 3, 2014, the victim G did not instruct the victim G to clean the pipes of this case at a height of 4 meters in danger of falling, but did not require the safety string, safety string, etc. to wear the safety strings, etc. during the work, and did not take measures necessary for the prevention of danger by installing a work strings in a place where a worker is at risk of falling.

In addition, the defendant company did not take necessary measures to prevent violation of A's Industrial Safety and Health Act.

2. The lower court found the Defendant Company guilty on the facts charged in accordance with the evidence in its judgment.

3. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The assertion that A did not violate the Industrial Safety and Health Act was made that A paid safety caps and safety belts to the victim, but the victim was negligent in wearing them.

On the other hand, the victim's work place is not a place where it is necessary to install a work plate or a safety protection net such as a rain gauge.

Therefore, A violated the Industrial Safety and Health Act.

The judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts or legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. Even if the Defendant Company’s assertion that it was not negligent in giving due attention and supervision, the Defendant Company provided education on industrial safety against A in order to prevent the violation of A’s Industrial Safety and Health Act, and paid safety equipment to employees via A.

arrow