In a case where the Defendant, who is a nuclear power-related business operator engaged in the inspection of non-destructive radiation, was indicted for violating the Nuclear Safety and Security Act on the ground that he did not take safety measures such as having the new personnel A undergo the inspection of non-destructive at the work site where radioactive materials have been leaked, and did not report the occurrence of exposure to radiation without delay to the Nuclear Safety and Security Commission, the case holding that the Defendant guilty on the ground that the degree of breach of duty of care and the consequence thereof was grave and the circumstances after the crime are poor.

In a case where the defendant, who is a nuclear power-related business operator engaged in inspection of non-destructive radiation, did not take safety measures such as allowing new personnel Gap to undergo an inspection of non-destructive radiation at the work site where radioactive materials have been leaked due to negligence, such as not checking the defects of the inspection devices in advance, and did not report the occurrence of exposure to radiation without delay to the Nuclear Safety and Security Commission, and was prosecuted for violation of the Occupational Occupational Injury and Nuclear Safety Act, the case holding that although the defendant acknowledged the crime, the defendant put Gap, who did not undergo proper safety education and practical education, into the non-destructive inspection site using radioactive materials without minimum safety equipment, was practically forced Gap and other employees for his own business interest so that the non-destructive inspection can only be conducted; Gap did not report the occurrence of exposure to radiation; Gap did not actively prevent early proper treatment; Gap's imprisonment with prison labor; and the result exceeded 60 times the maximum permissible amount of the above annual accident; and the defendant's violation of the duty of due care and duty of care was also deemed to be more and more.

Articles 37 and 268 of the Criminal Act; Articles 92(1), 98(1), and 117 subparag. 7 of the Nuclear Safety Act; Article 127 [Attachment Table 5] of the Enforcement Rule of the Nuclear Safety Act

Defendant 1 and one other

Ansan and 1 other

Law Firm Pyeongtaek River, Attorneys Kim Dong-do et al.

Defendant 1 shall be punished by imprisonment for one year, and by a fine of three thousand won, respectively.

When Defendant 2 fails to pay the above fine, the above Defendant shall be confined in a workhouse for the period calculated by converting KRW 100,000 into one day.

To order the provisional payment of an amount equivalent to the above fine against Defendant 2.

1. Defendant 1

(a) Injury by occupational negligence;

The Defendant, as the director of Nonindicted Co. 1’s branch office, is a nuclear energy-related enterpriser who is engaged in inspection of non-destructive of radioactivity after obtaining permission for the movement and use of radioisotopes and radiation generating devices.

Around 13:00 on December 3, 2015, the Defendant: (a) at △△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△ factory, where Nonindicted Company 1’s branch office was requested to perform a non-destructive inspection; (b) the victim Nonindicted Party 2 (25) who is an employee of the said branch office, using non-destructive inspection devices using radioactive raysumumumum, which are radioactive materials. In such cases, the Defendant shall provide the victim, who is an employee, with a radiation gauge (a accumulated amount of radiation exposed to the radioactive), and an known urban camera (a device measuring the amount of radiation leaked to the radioactive) so that safety measures, such as prompt evacuation, can be taken if the victim is exposed to the radioactive contamination exceeding the specified quantity; and (c) shall frequently check whether the radioactive contamination was defective, such as the leakage of the radioactive materials; and (d) shall conduct an inspection using the methods and methods of inspection to prevent the leakage of the radioactive materials to the scene.

Nevertheless, the Defendant did not assign a safety manager at the above site and did not sufficiently inspect the aforementioned non-destructive testing device in advance, and thereby leaked emulum rays, which is a radioactive material, in the testing device, due to defects in which the cables of non-destructive testing device are not completely combined, and did not pay the radiation gauge and alom urban camera to the victim while ordering the victim to work, so the victim did not know that the radiation was leaked, and did not work for about 3 hours and 30 minutes continuously, and was exposed to the radiation dose exceeding the dose limit (Article 30.5 SV) per year (Article 30.2 Sv).

Ultimately, the Defendant caused the victim to suffer injury to the victim, such as the disorder of the skin and the skin body due to the damage to radiation and radioactive rays, which requires treatment for about six months due to the above occupational negligence.

B. Violation of the Nuclear Safety Act

1) When abnormal radiation exposure has occurred pursuant to the Nuclear Safety Act, nuclear energy-related business operators should take safety measures and report such fact to the Nuclear Safety and Security Commission without delay.

Nevertheless, the Defendant did not take measures such as having the victim receive medical treatment at a nuclear hospital despite the occurrence of a radiation exposure accident against Nonindicted 2, such as the above A. A., and did not immediately report the occurrence to the Nuclear Safety and Security Commission.

2) According to Article 98 of the Nuclear Safety Act, the Nuclear Safety and Security Commission may order nuclear energy-related business operators to submit reports or documents related to their business. As to the above order, Article 127 and [Attachment 5] of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act provide that nuclear energy-related business operators shall immediately report to the Nuclear Safety and Security Commission within eight hours in the event radiation source shields from shielding containers.

Nevertheless, the Defendant did not immediately report the occurrence of the radioactive outflow accident, such as the above A, even though the radiation source was leaving the radioactive source for about four days until it was recovered normally from the radiation source around December 7, 2015 until the radiation source was recovered normally.

3) According to Article 98 of the Nuclear Safety and Security Act, the Nuclear Safety and Security Commission may order nuclear energy-related business operators to report or submit documents on their business. As to the above order, Article 127 and [Attachment 5] of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act provide that nuclear energy-related business operators shall immediately report the radiation exposure dose of workers engaged in radiation work by direct personal dose.

Nevertheless, from November 16, 2015 to December 3 of the same year, the Defendant did not report the radiation exposure dose of Nonindicted 2, 3, and 4 to the Nuclear Safety and Security Commission every time when the work is completed.

2. Defendant 2

No person who has obtained a license from the Nuclear Safety and Security Commission for handling radioisotopes, etc. shall lend it to any third person.

Nevertheless, from September 21, 2015 to January 4, 2016, the Defendant lent the Defendant’s above license to Defendant 1 on condition that Defendant 1 receive approximately KRW 700,000 per month, and let Defendant 1 register the Defendant as a safety manager at the inspection site of the △△△△△△△ factory.

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Each prosecutor's interrogation protocol concerning Defendant 1;

1. Each police protocol on Nonindicted 2, Nonindicted 5, Nonindicted 6, Nonindicted 4, and Nonindicted 3

1. Investigation reports (violations of management regulations), investigation reports (including the first report and accompanying documents of the defendant 1), investigation reports (including minutes, including copies, etc. of minutes of the Evaluation Committee on Radiation Exposure);

1. A written accusation (including attached documents);

1. Medical certificate (No. 63) and each photograph (No. 35,74 No. 5);

1. A copy of defendant 2's license and documents of administrative disposition suspending the license;

1. Article relevant to the facts constituting an offense and the selection of punishment;

A. Defendant 1: Article 268 of the Criminal Act (the point of occupational injury, the choice of imprisonment without prison labor), Article 117 subparag. 7, Article 92(1), and Article 98(1) of the Nuclear Safety Act (the point of failing to report to the Nuclear Safety and Security Commission and the choice of imprisonment);

B. Defendant 2: Article 118 Subparag. 2 and Article 88(2) of the Nuclear Safety Act

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

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

1. Detention in a workhouse;

Defendant 2: Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act

1. Order of provisional payment;

Defendant 2: Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

As the Defendant acknowledged the instant crime on June 27, 2017, and deposited 5 million won for the victim, and the victim appears to have received minimum monetary compensation through industrial accident compensation insurance, etc. However, the Defendant’s input of the victim who did not receive proper safety education or practical education into the scene of non-destructive inspection using radioactive materials without minimum safety equipment, and the Defendant, solely instructed the victim, including the victim, to do so for his/her own business interest, so that the victim, who is a new employee, can only have to comply with the above duty of care as stated in the facts charged, cannot be deemed as having been extremely harsh or irrelevant to the scene. According to the fact that the Defendant cannot be seen as having been subject to punishment on the ground that there is no doubt that the victim could have been exposed to exposure to the victim’s daily life at the time of his/her failure to perform the duty of care in light of the nature of his/her work using radioactive materials, it is more likely that the victim could have been exposed to exposure to the victim’s daily life at present beyond the permissible level of exposure to the victim’s health accident.

Judges Park Young-chul