Among the defendant B and C, their respective violations of the Occupational Safety and Health Act are reversed, and this part is reversed.

1. The court below affirmed the judgment of the first instance court which acquitted Defendant A of this part of the facts charged on the ground that: (a) comprehensively taking account of the following factors: (b) the chemical ingredients of paints detected in the safety appearance of H coincide with the chemical ingredients of paints detected at the house of the H; (c) the Defendant A stated in an investigative agency that H was not in moving from the above space of the cargo truck’s loading box; (d) the fact that H was found to have caused two damage by a strong external power, which served almost right angle on the front body as a result of the autopsy of H; and (e) the shape at the time of fall, etc. at the time of Defendant A’s manipulation, it cannot be readily concluded that Defendant A’s manipulation was shocked in the front body; or that H was removed from the floor because it did not take measures to prevent danger, such as ordering or guiding the work site, and thus, Defendant B cannot be deemed to have crashed the cargo at the work site, and thus, Defendant A cannot be deemed to have died.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the evidence adopted, the court below's determination is just and acceptable, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors of misapprehending the legal principles of logic and experience and exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence, or failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations,

2. Article 23(2) of the former Industrial Safety and Health Act (amended by Act No. 10968, Jul. 25, 2011; hereinafter “Act”) provides that a business owner shall take necessary measures to prevent hazards caused by improper work methods in excavating, quarrying, loading, unloading, timbering, transporting, operating, dismantling, handling heavy objects, and other work.