Do 2016 8311 A. Death by occupational negligence

B. Violation of the Industrial Safety and Health Act

(c) Injury caused by occupational negligence;

1. (a). (c) A

2. B. Stock Company B

3. (a)(b)(c) C

4. (b) D.

5.2. E:

6.(a)(b)(c) F

7.(a)(c) G

8. A. (c) H

19.(a)(c) I

Defendant 1

J (for defendant A, B, G, H, and I) a legal entity

Attorney in charge K, BE, BD

L (for Defendant C, D, E, and F) a legal entity

Attorney in charge N, BF, BG, BH, BI

Daejeon District Court Decision 2015-3584 Decided May 18, 2016

September 23, 2016

all appeals shall be dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are determined.

1. According to Article 383 subparag. 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, with respect to the grounds for appeal by Defendant A, B, G, H, and I, an appeal against the punishment of death or imprisonment with prison labor for not less than 10 years, or for not less than 10 years, may be filed only for the reason that the sentence was unfair. Thus, the allegation that the above Defendant B was unfair for the amount of punishment in the instant case sentenced to a minor punishment, cannot be justified.

2. Examining the reasoning of the original judgment in light of evidence duly adopted by the first instance court, which maintained the reasoning of the original judgment on Defendant C, D, E, and F’s grounds for appeal, it is justifiable to determine that the instant indictment against Defendant D, E, based on the same reasons as the judgment of the lower court, constitutes a conviction of all of the violation of the Industrial Safety and Health Act due to the suspension of work order, among the facts charged against Defendant D, E, based on the same reasons as the judgment of the lower court, and at the same time, there is no error of law by either misapprehending the logic and experience legal rules and exceeding the limits of free conviction, or by misapprehending the legal principles on emergency evacuation or other related legal principles.

On the other hand, Defendant E Co., Ltd.’s grounds of appeal on the violation of the Industrial Safety and Health Act due to the violation of measures to prevent industrial accidents are asserted as follows. Defendant E Co., Ltd.’s grounds of appeal are only made in the final appeal to the Supreme Court on the grounds that Defendant E Co., Ltd.’s grounds of appeal or that it did not take it as the subject of the judgment by the lower court ex officio

In addition, according to the record, Defendant C and F appealed against the judgment of the first instance, and they asserted only unfair sentencing on the grounds of appeal. In this case, the argument that the judgment of the first instance exceeds the limit of free evaluation of evidence or did not complete the deliberation cannot be a legitimate ground for appeal.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Jo Hee-de

Note Justice Lee Sang-hoon

Justices Kim Chang-suk

Justices Park Sang-ok