logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2014.04.18 2013노1127
산업안전보건법위반
Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The summary of the grounds of appeal in this case is established on the roof of the guard center in this case (hereinafter referred to as the “the flower in this case”). The guards around the guard center in this case have no high voltages, and thus, they must always be placed on the roof of the guard center in order to give water to the above brigade. Before the F is on duty, security guards have given water to the above chemical, and Defendant A also stated that the management office will perform incidental business such as cleaning or giving water to trees in addition to the stipulated security services for renewal of the contract. Thus, Defendant A could expect that F can perform the work of giving water to the chemical in this case.

On the contrary, the judgment of the court below that acquitted the Defendants is erroneous by misapprehending the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. The crime of violating Articles 67 subparag. 1 and 23(3) of the Industrial Safety and Health Act is established only where a business owner instructs work at his/her place of business operated by himself/herself without taking safety measures as prescribed by the regulations in relation to the work of danger of safety under Article 23(3) of the same Act, or neglects such instruction despite being aware of the fact that the work is being performed without taking such safety measures, and the act of violation is deemed to have been performed by the business owner. The mere fact that the above dangerous work was performed at the place of business of the business owner without taking necessary safety measures is not established.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2009Do12515 Decided September 29, 201, and Supreme Court Decision 2008Do7834 Decided September 9, 2010, etc.) B.

The following circumstances recognized by the records of this case, namely, Defendant A directly visited and managed the apartment of this case at least five times a month, and Defendant A voluntarily requested by the management office.

arrow