logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2020.11.26 2020고단6337
산업안전보건법위반등
Text

[Defendant A] The defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

However, the above sentence shall be executed for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

C A Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “C”) was declared bankrupt by the court on November 22, 2019 due to business deterioration while a corporation established on August 3, 2007 for the purpose of manufacturing, etc. in Ssung City D, which was engaged in the manufacturing of electric lighting fixtures by 25 regular workers.

Defendant

A as the representative director of C, a person in charge of safety and health management responsible for safety and health of his employees, and Defendant B is the chief of the factory of C, and Victim E (E and 48) is the employee of the said company.

Where a business owner installs protective devices, such as a type of presses, pressure ability, number of administration per minute, length and presses, etc. with performance corresponding to the suspension performance, such as taking over, operating safety devices, and response safety devices, etc. which have difficulty in taking necessary protective measures, such as the installation of a cover on the presses due to the nature of the work, he/she shall maintain the performance of the relevant protective devices, and where any defects in machinery or protective devices are found, he/she shall ensure that the relevant workers are used after maintaining them, and prohibit the use of the relevant machinery, protective devices, etc.

Defendant

B At the above workplace, between 09:00 and 10:00 on June 12, 2017, and 13:30 on the same day, the victim, who was an employee, caused the malfunction of the press machine at least twice, and thus, the Defendants were obliged to take safety measures, such as the replacement of the press board, to prevent accidents caused by the malfunction of the press machine and the press room.

Nevertheless, the Defendants neglected this and confirmed whether Defendant B simply classified the operating location of the press machine, or by putting his hand on the press machine, thereby working the crypted consensus. It is more than anything else after checking whether Defendant B operated the press machine.

arrow