Defendant shall be punished by a fine of two million won.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is the management director of Seodaemun-gu Seoul Western Construction Site.

At around 08:30 on March 14, 2016, the Defendant: (a) performed an fluoration with the persons related to the construction company “D” that received tightly paid wages at the above construction site; and (b) removed iron fences at approximately 2.4 meters installed by the parties related to “D”, and (c) caused the victim E by negligence exceeding the steel pents on the right side of the victim E, which was in front of the steel pents, to put the victim under the steel pents.

As a result, the Defendant suffered injury to the victim, such as an artificial cuttingter around the right-hand pelle, which requires approximately four weeks of treatment, due to such negligence.

Summary of Evidence

1. Entry of the defendant in part in the first trial record;

1. Legal statement of witness E;

1. Results of inquiries and replies made on March 23, 201 by the head of the new general hospital of the medical corporation;

1. Application of statutes on site photographs and diagnostic certificates;

1. Article 266 of the Criminal Act applicable to the crime, Article 266 (1) of the Criminal Act, the selection of fines, and the selection of fines;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. Determination as to the assertion by the Defendant and his/her defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. The Defendant, at the time of the instant case, was negligent on the part of the Defendant, since the Defendant, at the time, took safety measures, such as warning the possibility of danger by continuously sounding the pents; and

In light of the fact that the victim was unable to receive any diagnosis or treatment at the same hospital that received the first medical treatment, there was no injury due to this case.

2. According to the above evidence, the defendant is found to have failed to take such measures as installing safety facilities around the area when removing iron pents, such as the fact of prosecution, or evacuation of all people around the area in advance.

Defendant

As argued, a warning was given by means of sounding the pents.