2017 Highest 1097A. Occupational failure, etc.

B. Violation of Occupational Safety and Health Act

1.(a) A

2.b.B Stock Company

Han Jin (prosecution) and separate trials (public trial)

Law Firm C (For the Defendants)

Attorney in charge D

December 5, 2017

Defendant A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for six months, and by a fine of five million won.

However, from the date this judgment became final and conclusive, the execution of the above sentence shall be suspended for one year against Defendant A.

Defendant B is ordered to pay the amount equivalent to the above fine.

Criminal History Office

Defendant A is the managing director of Company B (hereinafter referred to as “B”), and is the director at the site of the Gangwon-gun Eelectric Power Facility Improvement Works (Transfer of New Stocks), the director at the site and the person in charge of safety and health management, and Defendant B is the business owner who is a corporation established for the purpose of electrical construction business, etc. in the F located in Gangwon-gun, Gangwon-gun.

1. Defendant A

(a) Violation of the Occupational Safety and Health Act relating to the death of workers H, and death by occupational negligence;

On July 24, 2017, the Defendant: (a) around 15:40, and around 15:40 at the above construction site, the Defendant: (b) had the victim H(61) remove the L/W amount on the telegraph.

At least 10.55 meters in the height of the telegraph station, there was a danger of falling and collapse or electric shock, and thus, the Defendant, as a person in charge of safety management at the above site, has been obliged to conduct a prior investigation into the relevant work, the topographical, geographical, and geo-story conditions of the workplace in order to prevent the danger of workers before performing the work of cancelling the telegraph station, etc., and to prepare an operation plan in consideration of the result, and to have the employees perform the work accordingly. In addition, there was a duty of care to prevent the danger of workers such as the fall and the collapse of the telegraph station, etc., such as conducting safety evaluation in order to prevent the collapse due to the heavy snow, wind pressure or added load of the structure, building, and outside facilities.

Nevertheless, the Defendant neglected this and did not prepare a work plan for dismantling electric poles, and did not pre-assessment safety evaluation, such as safety diagnosis, and caused the victim to die with tension with tensions caused by a tension with the upper part of the electric poles, while the victim was on the electric poles with a height of 10.5m high, added up to the lower part of the electric poles while performing the work for removing L-type complete payments, which exceeded the floor of the electric poles, along with the electric poles, while receiving medical treatment at the J Hospital located in Gangwon-si, Gangwon-si, Gangwon-si. At around 18:06 of the same day.

Accordingly, the Defendant neglected his duty of care in the course of performing his duties and did not take necessary measures for industrial safety, thereby causing the death of the victim.

(b) Violation of the Occupational Safety and Health Act (the violation of the Occupational Safety and Health Act other than that prescribed in paragraph (1);

In excavating, quarrying, loading, unloading, dismantling, handling heavy objects, and other work, a business owner shall take necessary measures to prevent any danger caused by defective working methods, etc. In detail, the business owner shall designate a person who conducts the work and direct him/her to work in accordance with the work plan, where he/she uses the vehicle system, loading, unloading, transportation, machinery, etc.

Nevertheless, around July 27, 2017, the Defendant did not designate a conductor to direct work as well as workers necessary for the transportation of loading and unloading at the above construction site.

2. Defendant B

A, who is a person in charge of safety and health management of the defendant at the time and place specified in paragraph (1), has committed the same violation as specified in paragraph (1).

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ legal statement

1. Each police statement of K and L;

1. A death certificate;

1. A report on supervision over construction safety and health, a full certificate of registered matters, and a report on serious accident investigation;

Application of Statutes

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

(a) Defendant A: Articles 66-2, 23 (2) and (3) of the Industrial Safety and Health Act (Violation of duty to take safety measures);

section 67(1) and section 23(2)(a) of the Act on the Protection, Protection, and Protection, etc., of Workers

Article 268 of the Criminal Act (the point of occupation by occupational negligence and death)

(b) Defendant B: Articles 71, 66-2, 23(2) and (3), and 67 of the Industrial Safety and Health Act;

Sub-paragraph 1, Article 23 Paragraph 2

1. Commercial competition;

Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act (Violation of the Occupational Safety and Health Act under Article 1-1 (A) of the Criminal Act against Defendant A)

Punishment for the violation of the Occupational Safety and Health Act with heavy punishment between the crime and the crime of death by occupational negligence

corporation)

1. Selection of punishment (Defendant A);

Each Imprisonment Selection

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

Articles 37 (former part), 38 (1) 2, and 50 of the Criminal Act

1. Suspension of execution (Defendant A);

Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act

1. Order of provisional payment (Defendant B);

Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

Reasons for sentencing

Although the result of the Defendants’ act is significant, all of the confessions are divided, the victim’s bereaved family members and agreement has been made, and the Defendant A has no record of exceeding the fine.

Edials