Suncheon Attorney Consultation | Occupational Negligence Causing Injury, Acquittal at First Instance Upheld Despite the Prosecutor's Appeal

🔗Occupational negligence causing death or injury refers to causing the death or injury of another person through occupational negligence or gross negligence.

The actor in occupational negligence causing injury must be a person engaged in a certain occupation, meaning work that a person performs repeatedly in the course of social life.

Even where there was no intent, occupational negligence causing injury may be committed if the result could have been foreseen or avoided, yet injury occurred because the duty of care was neglected.

Because occupational negligence causing injury is regarded as injuring another person by neglecting a duty of care during one's work, it carries a heavier penalty than simple negligence causing injury.

While simple negligence causing injury is punishable by a fine of up to 5 million won, detention, or a minor fine, occupational negligence causing injury is punishable by a fine of up to 20 million won or imprisonment of up to 5 years.

Through a Suncheon attorney consultation, it was argued that the prosecutor's claim was improper.

Article 254, Paragraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that the statement of the facts charged shall specify the date and time, the place, and the method of the crime so as to identify the facts.

The purpose of the law in requiring the facts charged to be identified by specifying the date and time, the place, and the method of the crime is to limit the subject of trial and to define the scope of defense for the defendant, thereby facilitating the exercise of the right of defense.

The prosecutor must therefore identify these matters, as far as possible, on the basis of the evidence available at the time of indictment.

Through a Suncheon attorney consultation, it was pointed out that the place of the accident stated in the facts charged in this case was specified as near the town crossing, whereas the victim's actual place of accident was about 100 meters away from the town crossing, so the facts charged were not specific.

The Suncheon attorney argued that such facts charged by the prosecutor could not be regarded as an indictment containing the specific statement of criminal facts required by the Criminal Procedure Act.

Through a Suncheon attorney consultation, it was argued that the accident was not caused by any carelessness on the client's part.

The client is a flagger at a construction site, performing the work of assisting drivers in checking the road ahead when they drive or pass through locations where the view ahead is poor.

In accordance with the work manual, the client directed the operation of the cargo vehicle and made every effort to ensure that no accidents, such as collisions, occurred while it was leaving the construction site.

The Suncheon attorney argued that the victim's being struck by the cargo truck at a point more than 100 meters away from the accident site fell beyond the scope of the duties the client, as a flagger, was required to perform.

Through a Suncheon attorney consultation, it was emphasized that it would have been physically difficult for the client to perform the main duties while at the same time managing a victim who was presumed to have been more than 100 meters away.