(b) Injury by occupational negligence;

C. Violation of the Building Act

D. Violation of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry

2.(a) B

3.(a)(b) C.

4.(b)(D)

5.(a)(c) E;

6.(a)(d)F

7.(a)(c)(d) G;

8.(a)(c) H

19.a.b) I

10.(a)(c) the J;

1.C. K. H.

12.D. I Q Co., Ltd. (former Trade Name (State))

13.C. M Co., Ltd.

Company M and Prosecutor (Defendant A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J. I.I. Q Stocks

G. M. M.)

Attorney ISS, IT

Law Firm IU (For the defendant C)

Attorney Q Q, IV

Law Firm T (Defendant D)

Attorney U-V

W Law Office Attorney W W W, Y (for Defendant E, J, K)

Law Firm Z (for Defendant F and International Q Co., Ltd.),

Attorney IX, IY, IZ, Z, JA

JB (for defendant G, H and corporation M)

Attorney JC, JD

AK Law Firm (for Defendant 1)

Attorney AL, JE, AM, andN

However, with respect to Defendant A, B, and C, the execution of each of the above punishments shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Defendant E, F, G, H, I, J, K, K, I Q, and the Prosecutor’s appeal against Defendant D, E, F, G, H, I, J, Q, and the Prosecutor’s appeal against Defendant D, E, F, G, H, I, J, Q, and Q, respectively, are dismissed.

A. Defendant A and B

Each sentence against Defendant A and B of the lower court (one year of imprisonment without prison labor in case of Defendant A, and two years of suspended execution in case of Defendant B) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant C

1) misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

A) Defendant C’s Incorporated Foundation BB (hereinafter “B”) is merely a sponsor with the first AU festival event (hereinafter “instant event”) to support only some of the stage production expenses, the request for cooperation and public relations by an external public institution, etc., and thus, it cannot be deemed that Defendant C had a duty of care for safety management as the organizer of the event, such as the facts stated in the judgment of the court below. Thus, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B) As Defendant C could not have predicted that there was a possibility of collapse of the exchange wind hole of this case, or that there was a considerable depth of vertical fall-off channel under the rashing, Defendant C did not have a proximate causal relation between Defendant C’s breach of duty of care and the victims’ occurrence of ideas, the lower court convicting Defendant C of the facts of the crime resulting in occupational negligence or death by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2) Unreasonable sentencing

The sentence of the lower court (two years of suspended execution in one year of imprisonment without prison labor) is too unreasonable. Defendant E, J, and K

1) misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

A) The lower court determined that Defendant E, J, and K Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “K”) performed the instant exchange winding tool in accordance with the detailed execution drawings approved by the project supervisor, and that Defendant E, J, and K had been otherwise executed in accordance with the detailed execution drawings approved by the project supervisor, and that Defendant E, J, and K was guilty of all the facts constituting the violation of the Building Act against Defendant E, J, and K, and the facts charged by occupational negligence against Defendant E, and J as a result of the judgment, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B) The exchange hole of this case is a facility that does not go up on the upper part. In fact, it was constructed at a height of not less than 1m from walking, and designed not to make access to people easy, and it also satisfies the ordinary safety by construction with a strength of up to 28 adults (based on 70km). Thus, Defendant E and J cannot be deemed to have a negligence in the execution. Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine or adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment, solely on the mere fact that it was constructed differently from the detailed execution drawings.

C) Although Defendant E and J could not anticipate the extreme situation where a large-scale public performance was held in the vicinity of the culture district of this case and more than 40 persons were simultaneously raised, the judgment of the court below which found Defendant E and J guilty of the crime of occupational negligence, resulting in a misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

D) The collapse of the exchange exit of this case was caused by the owner’s failure to control the exchange exit of this case from being exposed to people, and the failure to take particular safety measures at the lowest side of the events that are expected to be held by many visitors. Thus, there is a proximate causal relation between the violation of the duty of due care in the execution of the defendant E and the J and the result of the victims’ thought. Thus, the judgment below convicting the defendant E and the J of the crime of occupational injury caused by occupational negligence, by misapprehending the legal principles, or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2) Unreasonable sentencing

Each sentence of Defendant E, J, and K (Defendant E: one year and six months of imprisonment without prison labor and two million won of fine; Defendant J: imprisonment without prison labor and two million won of fine; Defendant K’s fine and two million won of fine; and Defendant K’s fine: KRW 2 million of fine) of the lower court is too unreasonable.

D. Defendant F. I Q Co., Ltd.

1) misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles (Defendant F)

A) Defendant F was the representative director of Defendant I Q Co., Ltd. (LL Co., Ltd. and changed to I Q Q Co., Ltd. on January 4, 2016; hereinafter “L”), and was in charge of overall management of the company, and cannot be deemed to have a specific and direct duty of care with regard to the construction work at the site of construction of the Exchange Punggu. However, the lower court found Defendant F guilty of criminal facts in occupational negligence or death, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

B) Defendant F is merely the representative director of L who is a subcontractor subcontracted by K, the contractor under the Building Act, and there is no obligation to verify whether the approval of the project supervisor of the detailed execution drawings is granted separately from K, and there is no such obligation under the contract or construction practice with K, and under the direction of K.

The court below found Defendant F guilty of the criminal facts resulting from occupational negligence or death, although there is no proximate causal relation between Defendant F’s negligence or the victims’ death and injury. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles, or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2) Each sentence (Defendant F, L) against Defendant F and L by the lower court (Defendant F: imprisonment with prison labor for one year, and Defendant L: fine of ten million won) is too unreasonable.

E. Defendant G, H, and M1) misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

A) Defendant G, H, and M Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “M”) executed the instant exchange winding area in accordance with the detailed execution drawings approved by the project supervisor. Even if K did not obtain the approval of the project supervisor, there is no responsibility for Defendant G, H, and M who performed the instant exchange winding area as a subcontractor according to the direction of K. Nevertheless, unlike the detailed execution drawings approved by the project supervisor, Defendant G, H, and M performed the instant exchange winding area differently from the detailed execution drawings approved by the project supervisor, the lower court erred by misapprehending the fact that Defendant G, H, and M were guilty of the crime of violation of the Building Act against Defendant G, H, and M, and the crime of occupational negligence resulting in death, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B) The exchange exit of this case is not a building to which the building structure standard is not applied, but a construction was conducted with an ordinary summer strength that should be equipped as a exchange hole. Defendant G and H could not be predicted that 40 persons enrolled at the same time in the exchange exit of this case were allowed to view the performance. Furthermore, the collapse of the exchange exit of this case was caused by the event that the event party failed to perform safety measures obligation, and thus, there is no proximate causal relation between Defendant G and H’s breach of duty of care and the result of the victim’s thought. Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below convicting Defendant G and H of the crime of occupational injury and death, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

C) Although Defendant G merely takes charge of the overall management of the company as the actual operator of M, it cannot be deemed that there was a specific and direct duty of care with respect to the construction work at the construction site of the Exchange Pung-gu in this case, the judgment of the court below which found Defendant G guilty of criminal facts resulting in occupational injury or death, which affected the conclusion of the judgment by

2) Unreasonable sentencing

Each sentence against Defendant G, H and M (Defendant G: Imprisonment with prison labor of 10 million won and fine of 2 million won; Defendant H: Imprisonment without prison labor of 10 months and fine of 2 million won and fine of 1 million won, Defendant M: fine of 5 million won and fine of 5 million won) of the lower court is too unreasonable.

F. Defendant

1) misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

A) Although Defendant I, a project supervisor, cannot be deemed to have a duty to review and confirm the construction condition of a ventilation hole, which does not fall under the main type of construction under the Building Act, compared with the detailed construction drawings, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine that recognized Defendant under the above duty of care, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B) Although Defendant 1 did not confirm the construction condition of the ventilation, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment, which found that Defendant 1 did not take corrective measures despite having confirmed the construction site differently from the construction site of this detailed construction drawings.

3) Unreasonable sentencing

The sentence of the court below (two years of suspended sentence for one year of imprisonment without prison labor) is too unreasonable.

(g) A prosecutor;

1) misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles (defendant D)

According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, although it can be sufficiently recognized that Defendant D was negligent in neglecting safety management as stated in the facts charged, the judgment of the court below which acquitted Defendant D of the part of the facts charged in this case is erroneous by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles which affected the conclusion of the judgment

2) The sentence imposed by the court below on the above Defendants A, B, C, E, F, G, H, I, J, L, and M is too uneasible.

2. Determination

A. As to Defendant C’s assertion of mistake and misapprehension of legal principles

1) As to Defendant C’s duty of care

A) The lower court determined that the Defendant C, who is the head of BB AU support headquarters (hereinafter “support headquarters”) in the position of joint organizer of the instant event, is responsible for safety management of the instant event, by comprehensively taking account of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court.

① From the previous 11th trial date, BB held a small scale “BG Special Contact” event on a monthly basis under the responsibility of Defendant C, and held a large scale “BG Special Contact event once every year.” Even before the event in 2014, BB decided to participate in the instant event upon the proposal of Party BY’s 3rd Special Contact event (see, e.g., testimony of Party B 11 trial date, testimony of Party B 8 trial date, event 4 right 2423, etc.), and detailed matters, such as the progress and order of the instant event, scenario, etc., were also determined by BB’s testimony under close consultation with Party B 1 and Party B’s witness at the 36th trial date (see, e.g., testimony of Party B, event, 7823, 736-75-93, etc.). Thus, the witness witness witness at the 19th trial date and Party B’s testimony were not held under close consultation with Party B 7B.

④ On October 10, 2014, BB sent to AY on the notice of support decision for the issuance of AU P PPPP is written by Defendant C as a general manager and approval authority (at least 1588 pages), Defendant C’s public notice on the safety inspection, etc. of the event site sent to the head of Sungnam-si branch of the Dong-si branch of the Dong, with the approval of Defendant C, as the title “written request for cooperation following the holding of 2014 AU SPPP, etc.”, and the public notice on the safety inspection, etc. of the event site at the time of the emergency situation, BB entered as a joint organizer (at least 3° 1495, 1496 and 1598 pages), and BB stated that B’s public notice on the safety inspection, etc. of the event site at the 2nd head of the Dong-si branch of the Dong branch of the Dong branch of the Dong branch of the Dong branch of the Dong branch of the Dong branch of the Dong branch of the Dong.

6. On the one hand, at the inside BB prior to the instant event, the document stating “2014 AU festival opening report” was prepared, and the employees shared (the above document is prepared by BB employee DoD, and appears not to be a document that BB shared with AY. However, on October 16, 2014, the day prior to the instant event occurred, 200 e-mail was sent to BC employees, who were the head of the operation planning team of BB. According to the above document, BB was also also recorded in BB’s 8th trial date, DP, DT, and BY’s 12th trial date, and the promotional materials were also recorded in BB’s 16th trial date in the event site, excluding the witness’s 8th trial date, 16th trial date, 16th trial date, and 5th trial date, and 15th trial date, 2000 employees were also indicated in BB’s 16th trial period.

viii) In relation to the instant event, BB’s competent officer was BD, but he did not commit suicide on October 18, 2014 following the occurrence of the instant accident. However, if Defendant C was not a mere sponsor who supported only a part of the costs of the performance events, as so claimed by the Defendant C, one of the employees of the mere sponsor would not have any significant responsibility for the instant accident, thereby failing to commit suicide.

9) Even if the financial profit from the holding of the instant event is fully brought about by the AY side, not only accords with the purpose of the establishment and existence of BB, but also with the same time, place, and method similar to the event of this case where BB intended to hold a large scale of BG special contact, which is the joint organizer of the instant event, has the effect of enjoying the promotion profit originally intended to enjoy, and there is no reason, such as that B would not be a joint organizer, and during that period, the participation in BG note or the instant event held by B was conducted with the approval or approval of the Defendant C, the entire head of the support headquarters.

B) In full view of the following circumstances that can be recognized by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below and the court below, it is reasonable to view that Defendant C, the joint organizer of the event of this case, has a duty of care to take safety management measures as stated in the facts constituting the crime in the judgment below, and to safety management at the event site, as stated in the judgment below. Accordingly, Defendant C and its defense counsel’s assertion that Defendant C did not have a duty of care as stated in the facts constituting the crime in the judgment below is rejected

① Defendant C merely supported the instant event and consulted with the deceased TY side is merely a preparatory process to determine the scope of participation of BB, or a personal cooperation of the network BD, and the document named BB as the organizer of the instant event without examining what meaning it is stated in the name of BB as the organizer of the instant event. However, in light of the developments and degree of involvement of BB in the process of the instant event as determined by the lower court, it does not appear that BB was merely a consultation with the deceased TY to simply determine the scope of participation, or that it was a personal cooperation of the deceased TD. Furthermore, in light of the fact that BB sent out the cooperation notice on the safety inspection of the place of the instant event to the head of Sung-nam City and the head of the safety support center, etc., and that BB was not the organizer of the instant event as the organizer of the instant event, and that it is reasonable to view BB as the joint organizer of the instant event’s position on the day of the instant event.

② Defendant C asserts that he did not approve the news report materials distributed to the press prior to the title of the instant event. However, in light of the type and content of the said news report materials, the statement of BB staff DR to the effect that the news report materials cannot be distributed without Defendant C’s consent, the head of the operating planning team and the head of the support headquarters, etc., it is reasonable to deem that the said news report materials were distributed under the approval of Defendant C. Even if they were not formally approved, it cannot be deemed that they were distributed without Defendant C’s approval.

③ Defendant C asserts that the document “2014 AU festival opening plan report” was prepared within BB prior to the instant event and the employees shared with respect to the instant event only to prepare BB promotional participation at the instant event site and not to take overall charge of the instant event. However, in light of the following: (a) monitoring of installation of stage facilities at the event site between B and B; and (b) designating a person in charge of BB’s VIP prior to the instant event site operation; and (c) designating a person in charge of the instant event by classifying BB’s operation and prevention of accidents at the event site; and (d) the preparation of the above document was merely for the operation of BB promotional event. (d) In addition, the degree of involvement in BB’s exercise is different from the existing “BG” or the remaining employees and co-ownership of BB’s implementation of the instant event did not interfere with BB’s exercise of the duty of care; and (e) the circumstances alleged by the lower court as Defendant CB’s employee and co-ownership were not related to the instant event.

2) As to Defendant C’s predictability and causation

A) In full view of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, the lower court determined that it was reasonable to view that Defendant C predicted and foreseeablely predicted the risk of people's appearance in the Magung-gu of this case, and further acknowledged proximate causal relation between Defendant C's violation of the duty of care and the result of the victims' thought.

① Generally, a person who hosts a large-scale event has a duty of care to forecast each stage of prior evaluation, such as field visits, safety management personnel, education and placement stages, safety inspection stages of facilities at public performances and events, safety device installation, or blocking dangerous acts. A, B, and Defendant C have a duty of care to establish a series of safety management measures to remove factors of safety accidents that may occur when the event is held after ascertaining safety such as the structure and collapse of the place and facilities, and checking the safety of safety prior to the event before the event in question. (Article 411 of the Act No. 411 of the event) The person who hosts the event has a duty of care and duty of care to predict various types of risks. (Article 41 of the Act)

② Defendant A, B, and Defendant C had predicted approximately 2,00 to 3,00 visitors to the event of this case (2,15-2,274 members who participated in the event of this case). Nevertheless, if only 500 visitors were installed within the general plaza, it seems that most of the visitors were able to have been able to view them at a place where they can easily see the performance stage, such as the seat group, around the general plaza without standing the majority of the visitors.

③ The “2014 AU festival plan report prepared by BB practitioners regarding the instant event” refers to preventing visitors from going to view performances on nearby stairs, events, facilities, etc. (see, e.g., e., 1st page 216). Therefore, it appears that the instant exchange winding machine is a representative structure, and that it was sufficiently anticipated that the instant exchange winding machine was going to know and unexpected accidents may occur.

④ At the time of holding the instant event, our society was emphasizing around the time when there was a collapse accident in the Marina Triart event site at the time of the instant event, and a safety accident that causes several hundreds of people to lose their lives, etc. In addition, our society had been emphasizing about the awareness of safety in the event through public opinion. As such, there was a high probability that any person can easily go into the public as he did not have a high height. As such, the Defendants holding the instant large-scale event, as seen in the instant case, had a duty to predict and take appropriate measures against the existence of the exchange wind of this case and the danger of falling due to the non-commercial use of the audience.

B) In full view of the following circumstances that can be recognized by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below and the court below, it is reasonable to deem that Defendant C had a possibility of predictability for the occurrence of the victims’ death and injury, and further, proximate causal relation is acknowledged between Defendant C’s breach of the duty of care and the occurrence of the result. Therefore, the judgment of the court below to the same purport is justifiable, and thus, Defendant C and its defense counsel’s assertion to the same effect is not accepted.

① At the time of the instant event, the Plaintiff, the head of the joint organizer BB of the instant event, was located in a place that does not directly adjoin the building, but is located between the passage of the general public and the general plaza. At the end of the visitors installed in the general plaza, the number of visitors was 24 meters from the stage of the instant event, and the number of visitors was 4 meters from the end of the visitors’ meeting installed in the general plaza. In addition, since the contact room for public performance was installed at the place adjacent to the instant ventilation, Defendant C, who is the head of the support headquarters for the instant event, anticipated that 2,00 to 3,00 visitors are allowed to view, could have sufficiently anticipated that the number of visitors to view the stage of the number of visitors who want to view at a more well-known place.

Defendant C, even if it could have anticipated that a large number of visitors might be exposed to the instant exchange winding area, he could not expect that the exchange winding collapses, or that there would have been a vertical fall-out passage of 18.55 meters underground. However, as seen above, it could have been sufficiently anticipated that a large number of visitors might be exposed to the exchange winding area at the time of the instant event, and that the exchange winding area in this case is considerably wide in size with 6.6 meters wide, 3.7 meters wide, 29.8 meters wide, and that the exchange winding area in this case is constructed in a single type of wire-type for preventing waste fall, and it appears difficult to easily recognize the depth of the rashing, and thus, it is reasonable to view that the risk of the collapseing of 2,00 or 3,000 visitors could be anticipated to be exposed temporarily to the instant exchange winding area, such as the safety and risk of visiting multiple visitors.

B. As to Defendant E, J, K, and Defendant G, H, and their defense counsel, and Defendant G, H, M and their defense counsel, on the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the determination of whether they were constructed in accordance with the detailed shop drawings approved by the project supervisor; whether the exchange hole of this case has ordinary safety; the possibility of predictability of the occurrence of the outcome and causation; and the assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles as to the same purport; and the determination of these facts in paragraphs (1) through (4) above is made; and (5) is made on the assertion of separate mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles as to Defendant G, H, and M.

1) As to whether construction has been executed in accordance with the detailed shop drawings approved by the project supervisor

A) A project supervisor responsible for supervision of a project for the use or of a scale prescribed by Presidential Decree may, if deemed necessary, request the contractor to prepare detailed shop drawings (Article 25(4) of the former Building Act (amended by Act No. 11690, Mar. 23, 2013; hereinafter the same shall apply)). Upon receipt of a request from the project supervisor to prepare detailed shop drawings, the contractor shall prepare the shop drawings and obtain confirmation from the project supervisor, and perform construction works accordingly (Article 24(4) of the former Building Act).

B) The summary of the facts charged of the violation of each of the Building Act by Defendant E, J and Defendant G and H as occupational negligence and the violation of each of the Building Act by Defendant E, J, K and Defendant G, H and Defendant M, the employees of Defendant G, and Defendant G, the employees of Defendant H, approved by the construction supervisor as to the manufacturing method of the transshipment hole in this case, the detailed construction drawings approved by the construction supervisor, as to the manufacturing method of the transshipment hole in this case, are fixed on the wall of the string to the concrete wall by fixing the string to the concrete wall with the string, and installed the 6 string string string string string string string string string without examining the string string string. However, without examining the string string string.

C) In full view of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, the lower court acknowledged that “the form (main form) of the exchange winding hole of this case, approved by the project supervisor, was “a structure that was made by fixing the type of the exchange winding hole of this case on the wall of the concrete wall of the spoppy with the spoppy string, that is, the form (main form) of the exchange winding machine of this case, which was not cut off, installed a spoppy on the wall of the concrete wall of the spoppy, installed a 3.7m wide, and 1m wide, a 6m wide

① On January 10, 2014, the day following the occurrence of the instant accident, L’s president and BW vice-president were found as M’s office and asked G (M president), etc. to verify the supervisory approval drawings on the instant transshipment. G was instructed H to confirm the detailed construction drawings on the entire AP block distribution hole including the instant transshipment hole, and the file stored in G, B, etc. was examined. However, “the actual construction drawings and other detailed construction drawings at the time of the instant exchange wind hole collapse” were stored in “the actual construction drawings at the time of the instant exchange wind hole collapse,” and there was no testimony that reflects the construction drawings at the time of the instant exchange wind hole collapse (i.e., the entire 100 x 50 x 2). If the testimony was not made on the 27th trial date, the testimony was not made on the 7th trial date (i.e., the 27th trial date).

② F과 BW는 2014. 10. 18. 시간 불상경 M의 사무실에서 G에게 인터넷 보도자료(그 전날 발생한 이 사건 환풍구 붕괴사고에 관한 뉴스를 통하여 나온 사진 등 자료)와 M 사무실에 보관되어 있는 자료들을 참고하여 이 사건 사고 환풍구의 실제시공 상태에 맞도록 상세시공도면을 작성하도록 요구하여 G으로 하여금 상세시공도면을 작성하게 하였다. 그 후 BW는 M 사무실에 보관되어 있는 이 사건 환풍구 등에 관한 기존 도면들(을마 1호증의 감리승인도면 등)과 G이 사고 후 새로 작성한 '상세시공도면 (을마 1호증의 현장설치도면)'을 취합하여, 같은 날 저녁 23:29경 K의 직원 성명불상자의 지시를 받고 L 회사 이메일 계정(DC)을 이용하여 K의 계약직 직원인 BU에게 위 자료들을 첨부한 이메일을 보냈다(시공 11권 8005 면, 제13회 공판기일 BW 증언 4~5면, 제14회 공판기일 BW 증언 2면, 제6회 공판기일에 제출된 을마 1호증 등). 한편 같은 날 23:44경 L의 BW 내지 불상의 담당자가 L의 이메일 계정(DC)을 이용하여 '내게 쓴편지'의 방식으로 자기 회사에게 첨부파일을 붙여 이메일을 보냈는데, 그 첨부파일에는 "질문: 승인된 도면과 왜 다르게 시공이 되어 있는가?, 답변: 승인된 도면과 같이 시공을 하려면, 환풍구 구조물 벽체에 앵커 화스너(앵글을 고정하는 조임쇠, Fastener) 작업된 철물 위에 L-ANGLE을 용접하여 그레이팅을 구조물 측면 L-ANGLE 위에 올려놓는 타입이나, 구조물 평면이 직각이 아닌 이형라운드(부채꼴모양)로 되어 있어 평면 크기의 이형라운드 그레이팅을 한판으로 국내 제조공장에서 생산이 불가하여 이형규격에 맞추어 재단설치를 하여야 하므로 구조물 평면 폭 3,700mm를 이등분하여, 폭 중간에 철물부재를 가로질러 시공하고, 그레이팅 기본 폭 1,000mm를 기준으로 좌·우 6매씩 12장으로 시공하고 모서리 부분 1장 포함 13매로 시공을 하였다."라는 내용이 들어 있었다(시공 11권 8005~8007 면, 제13회, 14회 기일에서 각 BW의 증언, 을마1호증). ③ 사고 후 이틀이 지난 2014. 10. 19. 저녁 F이 BW와 함께 다시 M의 사무실로 찾아가 G(M 사장)에게 "K이나 L는 (이 사건 환풍구에 관한) 자료가 하나도 없다"고 말하면서 "니네만 자료를 가지고 있어서 뭐하냐, 자료를 지우라"는 취지로 요구하였고, 이에 G은 즉석에서 "알겠다, 삭제하겠다"고 대답하였다. 그 후 G이 H에게 자료 삭제를 지시하였고, H은 M 사무실 컴퓨터 등에 보관 중이던 이 사건 환풍구에 관한 일체의 도면을 복구할 수 없도록 정교하게 삭제 파기하였다(제7회 공판기일 G 증언 12면, H 증언 12, 35면, 시공 5권 5274면, 12권 7595, 7871면), 한편, 경찰은 이 사건 환풍구 붕괴 사고 후 법원의 영장을 받아 2014. 10. 22. L의 방해 속에서 L 사무실에 관하여 압수·수색을 하였으나, 이미 자료가 없어져 이 사건 환풍구에 관한 공사자료는 거의 압수하지 못하고 다만 우연히 CC 이사의 책상에서 대책회의 메모지를 발견하였데, 거기에는 "승인 받은 게 없음", "E소장: 자료넘기지 말 것", "오해의 소지가 있는 것삭제" 등의 내용이 적혀 있었다[제10회 기일 BQ 증언 2~6면, 시공 11권 7985~7991면 (1245~1261면과 동일) 등].

④ As above, on October 18, 2014, 2014, BW sought a detailed map that reflects the actual construction condition of BW, along with G, etc. (i.e., half of B, 100 x 50 bit 2 bits, respectively), but there was no drawing that reflects the actual construction status. However, there was no other map regarding BW 1, however, it was confirmed that there was no other drawing that reflects the actual construction status, referring to the Internet news report information about BW 1, 200 and then sent e-mail to BU, who is an employee of K, by referring to the Internet news report information about BW 1, 201, 6901, 805 MaW 13, 104-14 and 14-64 times of public trial, and 7 e-mail from the project supervisor, e-mail, etc., i.e., e-mail, 2014.

⑤ AP 신축공사의 AQ블록 환풍구 도면은, "1. K이 2011. 3. 29. 센구조연구소에 검토 의뢰한 상세시공도면(시공 5882, 5883면, 'L'자 앵글을 1000m 간격 세트앵커로 고정, 쓰레기 낙하방지 철망 규격 '10×10×1.5', 그레이팅 높이 '45')" → "2. Golob 의제출한 H 작성의 도면(시공 2372, 4127, 5290면, 센구조연구소 회신에 따라 'L'자 앵글 밑에 500㎜ 간격 화스너 설치, 쓰레기 낙하방지 철망규격과 그레이팅 높이는 변동없음)" --- "3. K BU 보관 도면(시공 4736면 이하, 4747, 4743면, 'L'자 앵글 밑에 500m 간격 화스너 설치 변동 없음, 쓰레기 낙하방지 철망의 규격 10×10×1.5에서 23×23×2.3으로 변경, 그레이팅과의 일체형과 분리형 혼재)" → "4. 붕괴사고 다음날인 2014. 10. 18. M 사무실에서 확인된 도면(을마 1호증의 감리승인도면, 'L'자 앵글 설치 방식 및 철망 규격 변동 없음, 그레이팅 높이는 45에서 50으로 변경, 2011. 11. 1.자 상세시공도 검토요청서(시공 1978면)에 의해 그레이팅 높이가 시방서 대로 50으로 변경된 것이므로 사실상 최종 승인 도면과 동일하거나 매우 흡사함) 순서로 변동되었다. 그런데 L BW와 M G은 '사고 직후 실제 시공상태를 반영하는 사고 환풍구 도면을 찾았으나 다른 도면을 발견하였고, 인터넷 자료를 토대로 실제 시공상태를 반영한 도면 (을마 1호증의 현장설치도면)을 새로 그린 다음 K 측(BU)에게 이메일로 보냈다'고 진술한 점, '40×40 규격의 각관'은 그레이팅을 지지하는 구조재가 아닌 점, 상세시공도면을 작성한 H은 K 측과의 협의를 통해 최초 상세시공도면을 계속 업데이트하면서 수정작업하였다고 진술하는바, 위 을마 1호증의 감리승인도 면이 사고 직후에 M에 보관되어 있던 최후의 도면이었던 것으로 보이는 점, 을마 1호증 도면은 BU 보관도면과 실질적으로 그레이팅 높이만 '50'으로 다를 뿐 다른 내용은 동일한 것으로 볼 수 있는 점(2011. 11. 1.자 상세시공도 검토요청에 대한 검토 후에 그레이팅과 쓰레기낙하방지 철망을 일체형으로 변경하면서 그레이팅 높이가 시방서대로 50으로 수정되었다. 시공1978, 3923면) 등에 비추어 보면, 결국 공사감리자의 승인을 받은 최종 상세시공도면은 BU 보관의 도면이나 을마 1호증의 형태라고 할 것이고, 그 형태는 '분절되지 아니한 그레이팅의 형태로서 세트 앵커로 콘크리트 벽면에 ㄱ자 형강을 고정시켜 그 위에 앵글을 설치하고 그레이팅 6개를 앵글 위로만 얹는 구조'라 할 것이다.

6. K's defense counsel is a structure in which five '40 '40 '40 '40 ' ' 40 ' ' 40 ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '

Since vertical and horizontal painting was a structure that was directly aground, and safety has been strengthened by installing two "each pipe of size 40 x 40 x 50 x 40 x 'the angles of size '100 x 50' as structural materials', H who prepared the detailed construction drawings approved by the construction supervisor stated to the effect that the detailed construction drawings approved by the construction supervisor were eventually subdivided in the form of cut-out lacing. However, the detailed construction drawings of this case were installed in 40 x 40 glus, around April 201. However, the detailed construction drawings of this case were installed in 40 x 40 glus, and each of the above 5 x 40 glus were attached to the scrap lacing net, not to receive the load of the racing. The concrete construction drawings of this case were prepared by him. The support of the concrete poppy is supported by the concrete walls.

2. 2's 'bal poppy'. However, it was difficult to execute the construction in accordance with the detailed construction drawings of K after placing such detailed construction drawings on K. 2 after having been ordered to do so, the above 40 x 40 x 40 x 10 malcopical consultation is not required to do so in the K site office with detailed construction drawings, and the work orders are received in accordance with the consultation. 40 x 40 mcopic 5 mcopic 20 mcopic 20 mcopic 60 mcopic 50 mcopic 20 mopic mcopic 60 mcopic mcopic 20 mopic mopic mcopic 60 mopic mopic mcopic mcopic 20 mopic mcopic mcopic 6166 mcopic ms.

7) In light of the above developments leading up to the modification of the construction drawings of the exchange wind hole in this case and the acts of the construction parties after the accident, the detailed construction drawings approved by the project supervisor with respect to the exchange wind hole in this case shall be deemed to be the detailed construction drawings (construction drawings, No. 4736-4751, surface 7751) of the K employee BU stored in the Republic of Korea as the same as the supervision approval drawings of Eul 1, which was modified at a height of 50 meters at the above 50 meters, and the main form of the drawings is as follows: “Unfreshed rash type”; i.e., the detailed string type, the concrete poppy type; i.e., the concrete poppy type, installed on the concrete wall with a stoppy so as to be the structure aground only above 3.7 meters in width, and even if the Defendants related to construction are unable to fully submit the detailed construction drawings after the occurrence of the accident in this case, it cannot be deemed to be interfere with the above BU drawing or 1.

D) In addition, the lower court determined that: (a) the detailed execution drawings approved by the project supervisor with respect to the instant exchange hole were drawings different from the actual execution drawings of the instant exchange hole; and (b) even though the detailed execution drawings that reflect the actual execution conditions of the instant exchange hole, which reflects the actual execution conditions of the instant exchange hole, were not prepared; (c) the Defendants, who were related to the construction, voluntarily divided the form that they should install a Korean exchange caption without the project supervisor’s approval on the grounds that there were difficulties in construction and management, agreed to revise the said drawings in a manner that arbitrarily divided them into Category A4 to BP, by allowing H to make it available to BP, and had BP perform the relevant construction work at his own discretion.

① Defendant H, a vice head of the CAD drawing, prepared the detailed construction drawings of all exchange tools located in AP block of AP new construction project, including the instant exchange wind hole, stated that no detailed construction drawings reflecting the actual construction situation of the instant exchange wind hole (the seventh trial date H 7-10 pages, etc.). H attempted to deny all suspected facts at the initial stage of the investigation, rather than to make a false statement to BP. However, from the middle of the investigation, “the construction project operator made a request for confirmation (approval) of the detailed construction drawings,” the said CAD drawing, which is the drawing, is to be applied for the said CAD drawing, and the construction supervisor examined the said CAD drawing, which is not the CAD, and that “the construction supervisor prepared the detailed construction drawings to the construction supervisor,” and “the construction supervisor ordered the construction supervisor to make a work without the approval of the CAD’s work order 】 the construction instruction without the approval of the construction work order x the construction order 4 out of the construction work drawings.”

The work order is issued. "....." ", while oral consultation as above, the government decided to establish two parts of 40 x 50 grames, after deducting 100 x 40 grams attached to the steel network for the prevention of garbage fall, and the government decided to set up two parts of 100 x 50 grams as the Malaysia support. It is clearly stated that "in order to give the work order to the work partner BP, there was a fact that the picture was placed in hand on the A4 paper, but it was not a drawing for obtaining the approval of the project supervisor" (construction 2909-2910, 3685-3691, 4891, 5268, 627-6238, 696-6974 pages, etc.).

② On October 18, 2014, the day following the date when the accident occurred, G was found to be M and was requested by F and B to verify the supervision approval drawings made with respect to the instant exchange winding hole, and at the time of confirmation, there was a “other detailed construction drawings in the form of “the instant exchange winding hole”. However, G stated that there was no detailed construction drawings reflecting the actual construction state (the testimony of G on the seventh trial date). In other words, G confirmed the detailed construction drawings stored after the collapse of the instant accident, but it was only a detailed construction drawings different from the actual construction state, and thus, it appears that G deleted the instant documents.

③ A project supervisor 1 may verify the detailed execution drawings requested in a form different from the actual execution drawings of this case. However, he/she shall state that he/she did not request approval from the project supervisor after preparing the detailed execution drawings that reflects the actual execution conditions as at the time of the collapse of the exchange hole of this case (3rd trial date, 6234, 6235 pages, etc.).

(4) Along with the 7th trial date’s testimony 28,36 pages, construction 488-489 pages, etc. He stated to the effect that “No person other than BP was executed, and bP was a mixed construction of materials. At the same time, 20,000 additional materials were installed, and thus, he/she is accurately memoryd due to the lack of materials at the time,” (see, e.g., construction 488-489 pages). BP made a statement to the effect that “No more than 20,000 additional materials were installed, and thus, he/she made an accurate memory due to the lack of materials at the time,” without any detailed construction drawings reflecting actual construction conditions from the police to the court of the original trial, and that he/she has consistently made a statement from H on the 20th trial date and no more than 20,000 of the 21st trial date’s testimony and no more than 21,000 of the 2nd trial date.

⑤ This part of the process management department, “The detailed construction drawings listed in L in L,” did not install two 100 x 50 grams under the supervision of L, and instead of installing two gates under the supervision of L, it was installed in the poppy of 40 x 40 grams each to be attached to the steel network for the prevention of garbage fall. However, there was difficulty in executing construction. On the other hand, it was difficult for L side (at the time, all L and M were referred to as “L”) to confirm the site, and it was difficult for L to have the accident exchange wind constructed the string. Accordingly, L was written on the part of L to the effect that the 31631 x 2636 grams each were written on the part of L (see, e.g., the 361 x 3636 grams).

6 HV stated in the investigation that “In the course of the investigation, this drawing was in the form of a drawing in which five pipes are installed for the attachment of a scrap prevention file (e.g., cutting off and installing two vertical angles below them) for the purpose of installing a waste fall-off network.” (Execution 198, 3272, 6414) reflecting the actual construction condition of the instant case.

7) According to the CMF report of July 25, 201, the CZ group with respect to the instant construction works, stating that the major changes in the design documents are centered on the minutes of the contractor and the ordering office, and the contents of some changes in the design documents are not information sharing and delivery to the design contractor and the supervising office (construction 506, 5516 pages). In light of this, it is likely that K, a contractor, without properly notifying the changes in the design documents, etc., as to the change in the construction of the wind hole, could have been executed without properly notifying the design contractor and the supervising office of such changes.

8. The construction of a interchange hole is executed through discussions and collaboration among various work-related persons. The designer of the drawing (M and L, in fact, means H which has prepared all exchange drawings of Q block) prepared and delivered the detailed construction drawings to the contractor, and the contractor requests the construction supervisor (I) to examine them, and the detailed construction drawings are completed after going through the procedures approved by the construction supervisor. However, if the construction supervisor considers that there is a problem in the drawing, he/she instructs the originator of the drawing to modify the drawing, and the construction contractor again requests the construction supervisor to approve the revised drawing if the drawings were modified in accordance with the above instructions. If the author completed the construction process of preparing the detailed construction drawings of this case, he/she kept the revised CAD drawings (i.e., the revised CAD drawings) at the last stage of construction (the last stage of construction) without any need to keep the revised CAD drawings at the time of the destruction of evidence, despite the absence of any special reason for the latter to keep the CAD drawings at the latest stage of construction (the last stage of construction).

H, without approval of supervision, made a oral consultation with K’s personnel to repare construction without a plan. The fact that no detailed construction drawings reflecting the actual construction conditions at the time of the collapse of the exchange hole of this case (the credibility of its statements is recognized) have been made by K’s investigative agency, and that K’s detailed construction drawings listed on the west are cut off and set up a 100 x 50 gram 40 gram 40 gram 40 gram 60 gram 40 gram 60 gram 40 gram 60 gram 40 gram 40 gram 40 gram 6 gram 20 gram 40 gram 6 gram 40 gram 6 gram 40 gram 6 mar 6 mar 2, respectively, did not seem to have any problem in the field of the accident.

E) Examining the facts and the circumstances revealed by the court below in light of the records of this case, a thorough examination of the facts and the circumstances revealed by the court below was conducted in such a way that the court below arbitrarily divided the form of the exchange wind hole of this case (the main form) under the detailed construction drawings of the exchange wind hole of this case approved by the project supervisor on the grounds as stated in its reasoning, although "the form of the exchange wind hole of this case (the main form)" was just and there was no error in law by misunderstanding the shape of the spoppy, that is, by fixing the spoppy on the wall of the concrete wall of the spoppy, and installing the spoppy on the wall of the concrete wall of the spoppy and 3.7 meters in length and 1 meter in width, sp, J, J and F on the spoppy, and the above defendants' defense counsel and defense counsel are not asserted otherwise in the above part or the evidence presented by the court below.

2) As to the instant assertion on the safety of the land exchange winding

A) The ventilation hole is an open part of a building structure for sudden or exhaust gas, and its main function is identical to that of a building structure, and its main function is very diverse. As many people walk, a ventilation hole installed in a form where it can take and pass without any particular doubt about the safety of the roadside public road, and is installed in a place where people can not come up arbitrarily, or people's access to safety fences or landscaping blocking facilities is obstructed, and a ventilation hole is installed in a wall or a photograph where it is installed at a place where people's access to safety fences or landscaping blocking facilities is obstructed. In addition, the inner structure of the ventilation hole is also in a structure where people cannot go up at the beginning, and it is installed in a structure where people cannot go up immediately with the ground. In addition, even if people fall down, it is necessary to determine whether there is a high depth in depth installed to the extent that people do not have any particular problems, while people fall, it is necessary to determine whether there is a possibility of understanding and possibility of understanding of the surrounding landscape of people's accessibility.

B) In full view of the following circumstances that can be recognized by the court below and the court below’s duly adopted and examined evidence, it is reasonable to view that the exchange exit of this case did not have the stability to be equipped with an ordinary exchange tool. Therefore, Defendant E, Jph Defendant G, H, and their defense counsel’s assertion to the effect that the exchange exit of this case has the stability to be equipped with an ordinary exchange tool.

① The exchange hole of this case is not attached to the building, but is located between the walking route and the general square of the general public (i.e., the concept of the ground plan - the walking route of the general public - the exchange wind flag of this case - the general square - the form of construction 3600, 3601, and 394, which is installed at a height of at least one meter from the walking route of the general public. Although the exchange hole of this case is installed at a height of at least one meter from the walking route of the general public, it does not seem to be the form of ordinarily going up and going up by the users of the building or the passage of the people at ordinary times. However, there is no general plaza adjacent to the exchange wind hole, and no facility is installed to block people’s access, such as safety fences, etc. around the exchange wind hole, and it is merely one meter, and if an assembly or event, etc. of many people in the general plaza is opened, it is installed in the location and form that people walking along the pedestrian way easily.

② The ventilation hole of this case is a facility for the ventilation of underground parking lots with a size of 4th underground floors, which is installed vertically without a gradient of 18.55 meters high from the ground to the surface of the fourth floor above the ground, and is a dangerous structure that can fall immediately on the top of the floor of 18.5 meters high from the ground without any resistance in the event that the rashing is constructed on the top of the top without any fall prevention facilities, and the rashing is collapsed.

③ The size of the tamping installed on the instant tamping hole is considerably larger than 29.8 square meters (6m, 3.7m, Gaz. 6m, Gaz.). The tamping of each Article 13 is on the board of any string that supports the interior of the street direction (e.g., absence of 3) and the interior. The lower part of the lower part delivered by the tamping (e.g., absence of 1, 2) is delivered to the absence (e., absence of 1, 2) of two vertical direction. The lower part of the tamping (e.g., absence of 1, 2) is in the form of two parts of the tamping hole (6.6m, 649, 650, 3609-3622-2, 3609-22, 25m) and there is no ability to receive more than 15m25m2 of the appraisal report.

감정단 한국건축구조기술사회 작성의 감정 최종보고서 등에 의하면, 이 사고 환풍구 사고는 집중하중을 견디지 못하고 꺽여버린 세로부재2의 하중재하능력 부족이 결정적인 원인인 것으로 밝혀졌고, 세로부재2의 실제 극한활하중재하능력은 180~234kgf/m였는데, 이는 이 사건 환풍구 시공 당시의 건축구조설계기준(2005)이 규정하고 있던 '접 근이 곤란한 지붕'이 갖추어야 할 하중재하능력(등분포활하중 100kgf/m, 극한활하중 160kgf/m²)을 간신히 초과할 뿐(이 사건 환풍구가 보행로로부터 불과 1m의 높이로 설치되어 있어 일반인 누구든 쉽게 올라갈 수 있는 높이인 바, 접근이 곤란하다고 평가할 수는 없다), '옥외광장'이 갖추어야 할 하중재하능력(등분포활하중 1,200kgf/m, 극한 활하중 1,920kgf/㎡)이나 '정원 및 집회 용도인 경우 갖추어야 할 하중재하능력(등분포 활하중 500kgf/mi, 극한활하중 800kgf/m²)은 물론, '적재물이 거의 없는 지붕'이 갖추어야 할 하중재하능력(등분포활하중 200kgf/㎡, 극한활하중 320kgf/mi)에도 현저히 못 미친다.

④ In many cases, subway transshipment equipment, etc., which the general public can easily access in daily life, are installed along pedestrian routes. In such a case, the plan is designed to support 500 km/m among the distribution activation of such devices, etc. so that people can easily walk the said equipment without doubt as to its safety. Accordingly, there is sufficient possibility that people may not easily understand the danger of collapse with respect to other distribution equipment, such as subway exchange equipment, etc. In the same form and other distribution equipment, the same form and material of which are installed, such as subway exchange equipment, are installed. Although the pertinent transshipment equipment was installed in the same manner as that used in the general subway exchange equipment, there is a sprinking of the same quality and material in the same manner as that used in the general subway exchange equipment, it is installed at a height of one meter from the pedestrian passage where the height is low, and there is no particular access blocking equipment or warning sign. Accordingly, it seems that the general public can easily come up as above without any awareness about the collapse risk.

⑤ As above, the exchange wind hole of this case is a very dangerous structure and was installed in such a way as to allow easy access by the general public despite the possibility that the risk is not easily recognizable by the general public. However, the exchange wind hole of this case was constructed in accordance with the detailed execution drawings approved by the project supervisor, even if it was possible to support 568-690km/m from among the distribution mode, such as the distribution mode, but, notwithstanding the fact that the Defendants related to construction changed the design and executed the construction differently from the detailed execution drawings approved by the project supervisor, it is inevitable that the Defendants related to construction will collapse at a very low level.

3) Comprehensively considering the following circumstances that can be acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court and the trial court as to the assertion of predictability, it is reasonable to view that the Defendants, such as Defendant E, J, Defendant G, and H, had predicted and sufficiently predicted the risks that may cause many people to go to the instant exchange climate, and therefore, the original decision to the same purport is justifiable, and there is no error of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles, and thus, this part of the assertion of Defendant E, J, Defendant G, and H is not accepted. ① The exchange wind exit is a new part of the construction structure for the rapid or exhaust gas, and its location or form is very diverse as seen earlier. Therefore, even if the exchange wind exit is not naturally expected to go to go to the upper part in light of its original purpose, it should be determined that there is a specific structure that could have been predicted that the exchange wind hole should have been installed, and so long as it is not possible to get access to the upper part of the floor and the wall.

② The exchange hole of this case was installed parallelly on the floor level and the height of one meter from walking side of the general square. From the time when the Plaintiff constructed and sold the instant exchange hole, the general square was planned to gather as much as it stated that the exchange hole was installed on the side of the general square, not on the side of the building, but on the side of the general square, 12,300 square meters from the time when the building was sold in lots, and that “it is possible to experience various cultures, such as performances, sports, and events, within the central square, at the same time.” At the time of the construction of the support structure of the exchange hole of this case, the BP, which directly constructed the exchange hole of this case, was set up on the general square, which is not on the side of the building, and was set up on the side of which the height was lower.

③ Although the HD and HC, which prepared the design drawing of the instant exchange wind hole, stated at the investigative agency that they installed at a height of one meter from the walking route for the purpose of preventing the passage of people, such as a passage along the neighboring passages, etc., the height of one meter is the height that can be easily raised by the general public.

④ Considering the location of the exchange hole in this case where multiple groups of the general squares in contact with the scheduled general squares, and the mode of construction with the floor area of 29.8 meters parallelly with the floor surface at a height of 1m and fire from the passage road, it is reasonable to deem that it was difficult to expect that a large number of people might be on the rashing of the exchange hole in this case where a large number of people gather in the general squares.

4) The following circumstances that can be acknowledged by the lower court’s judgment and the evidence duly admitted and examined the causal relationship between the victims, namely, ① the exchange wind hole type (main form) approved by the project supervisor on the instant exchange winding drawings were “unftened type, i.e., poppy type on the wall of concrete poppy, installed 3.7m wide, 1m wide, 6 poppy type above that,” and the absence that the Defendants were under construction supervision by using the 6m long-term poppy type for lack of capacity to be seen as having caused the lack of capacity to exercise the duty of care to the victims, and thus, the Defendants’ failure to exercise the duty of care to exercise the duty of care to the effect that there was no significant difference between the construction supervisor and the 10m high-speed poper’s failure to exercise the duty of care, and thus, the Defendants’ failure to exercise the duty of care to exercise the duty of care to the construction supervisor’s 1,100km p.m. x 90m.

5) As to the remainder of Defendant G, H, and M

A) Defendant G and H asserts to the effect that, even though K did not obtain the construction supervisor’s approval by preparing detailed construction drawings that reflect the construction condition of the instant exchange hole, Defendant G and H did not assume any responsibility for occupational injury or death, since they constructed the instant exchange hole as ordered by K. However, the lower court and the first instance court determined as follows: (a) Defendant G and H had first requested and consulted on the person in charge of K to change the construction method, such as rashing, by asserting that it is difficult to carry out the construction work in accordance with the detailed construction drawings approved by the construction supervisor; (b) Defendant H did not have prepared the detailed construction drawings that reflect the construction condition of the instant exchange hole; and (c) Defendant H did not fully know that the construction supervisor’s prior construction was carried out without the construction supervisor’s approval; and (d) Defendant H did not accept the construction order by being aware of the circumstances that there was no possibility for the construction supervisor’s change or that it would not have been justified in light of the circumstances that the construction supervisor’s approval was given to the construction supervisor’s order.

B) Defendant G asserts that he is only the operator of M and has no specific duty of care in connection with the instant landing hole construction. However, in full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court and the court’s duly admitted and investigated evidence, Defendant G was involved in the instant landing construction, which is included in the re-subcontracted construction, as the actual operator of M with four employees, by re-subcontracting part of the AP metal construction work from L; ② Defendant G is indicated as the head of L in the contact with the subcontractor in the final report on supervision services; and Defendant G appears to have been involved in the process of the instant landing hole construction; Defendant G appears to have actually participated in the process of performing the instant landing hole construction; Defendant G did not accept the specific and direct duty of care in light of the circumstances stated in the judgment of the lower court, which led to the maintenance of the structure of the instant landing construction work in a position in charge of performing the subcontracted metal construction work, as stated in the facts constituting the crime in the judgment below, and thus, Defendant G did not have any specific and direct duty of care.

1) The following circumstances that can be acknowledged by the lower court and the court’s duly adopted and examined the duty of direct and specific care of Defendant F, namely, ① Defendant F, the representative director of L, did not directly perform some of the above metal works despite having been subcontracted for the above metal works from K, which is the contractor of L, and ② Defendant F, even though he had been able to manage the site by paying more attention than the case of directly performing L, even though he did not stay at the site, Defendant F did not leave the qualified field manager and instead left M G and H to do so as if L is an employee. In full view of the following circumstances, Defendant F did not accept the specific and direct duty of care to the effect that Defendant F did not have any specific and direct duty of care to ensure that the construction site workers have a safe structure by placing a national technical qualification holder corresponding to the pertinent process as stated in the facts constituting the crime in the lower judgment, and performing construction work in accordance with the detailed construction drawings confirmed by the construction supervisor, and whether construction work is performed with the design drawings and specifications, and thus, Defendant F does not have any specific duty of care.

2) The following circumstances that can be acknowledged by the court below and the court below on the violation of the duty of care as to the defendant F's violation of the duty of care and the causation were duly adopted and investigated by evidence of the court below (i.e., the exchange wind hole of this case, unlike the construction drawings approved by the project supervisor, was modified to be constructed by dividing it into a method of installing it, and thus there was a need to prepare detailed construction drawings and obtain review and approval from the project supervisor. (ii) However, the exchange wind hole of this case, in addition to the exchange wind hole in AP block of the AP new construction corporation, was prepared with detailed construction drawings for other exchange wind hole than the exchange wind hole of this case, but the detailed construction drawings for the exchange wind hole of this case were not prepared, but it was accepted by the project supervisor's duty of care without the project supervisor's approval, and thus, it cannot be seen that there was a lack of causation between the construction supervisor's duty of care and the construction obstruction of construction without the project supervisor's approval.

D. As to the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

1) Article 2(1)4 and 15 of the former Building Act provides that the construction site shall be subject to the duty of care of the construction supervisor. Article 2(1)14 and 15 of the same Act shall refer to the drawings, structure calculations, and other necessary drawings and specifications for the construction of the building; the construction supervisor shall confirm whether the building, etc. is constructed in conformity with the drawings and specifications; and the former Building Act shall provide that the construction supervisor shall, when conducting construction supervision, inform the construction supervisor of the matters in violation of this Act, orders or dispositions under this Act, and other relevant Acts and subordinate statutes; and the construction supervisor shall, when he/she fails to comply with the request for correction or reconstruction; the construction supervisor shall be subject to inspection. This provision shall provide that the construction supervisor shall prepare detailed specifications and specifications for the construction work; the latter shall be subject to inspection; the latter shall be subject to inspection by the Minister of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs; the latter shall be subject to inspection of whether the construction supervisor's construction supervision conforms with the standards and specifications prescribed by Presidential Decree.

In light of the above provisions and purport of the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, a project supervisor shall directly attend and confirm the process of construction for major types of construction, and in other cases, it is reasonable to deem that the contractor has the duty to request the contractor to correct or reconstruct the construction work, in a case where the construction is different from the design documents, and the construction is inspected from time to time or when necessary.

Therefore, Defendant I and his defense counsel’s assertion to the effect that Defendant I, the project supervisor, is not obligated to examine and confirm the actual execution condition and detailed execution drawings because the execution of the exchange winding equipment in this case does not fall under the main type of construction.

2) As to whether the condition of construction of the instant exchange hole was confirmed

A) The lower court, based on the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, stated that the following circumstances are acknowledged by the lower court (i.e., ① as the rescue framework of the exchange wind hole of this case was carried out in the middle of May 201, the Defendant living at the site and sufficiently confirmed the construction condition of the exchange wind hole of this case for several months thereafter, and the Defendant living at the site was merely adjacent to the exchange wind hole of this case. Furthermore, the Defendant’s statements such as BX and BV correspond to this (i.e., the foregoing Defendant’s assertion that the change in the construction condition of the exchange wind hole of this case was made around November 201, but it is difficult to avoid liability itself only with the difference in the construction condition of the above Defendant’s voluntary construction period). (ii) Meanwhile, the Defendant stated that the construction of the exchange wind hole of this case was carried out to the extent of temporary installation of the structure frame of the exchange wind hole of this case, but it did not appear to have been made within 10th of 30 minutes of the change report.

In full view of the following facts: “The details of the changes in drawings are partly performed centering on the minutes of the company and the ordering agency’s meeting and the contents of the changes in drawings are not to be delivered to the supervising agency; “The supervision, instead of prior consultation review, changes in the form of subsequent approval for supervision, and thus does not play a proper role of the supervising agency” (the construction 8:506, 5513, 5516 page); and Defendant I also stated that “The supervising agency requests that the contractor should not pre-construction, but the company’s position would not be strong (the construction 5:321 page), 4. In light of the large scale, unique shape, location, etc., of the exchange wind of this case, Defendant could be sufficiently recognized even if he knew of the fact that the plan was executed differently from the detailed drawings he has approved.”

나) 원심이 판시한 사정들에 더하여, 원심 및 당심이 적법하게 채택하여 조사한 증거들에 의하여 인정할 수 있는 다음과 같은 사정들, 즉 ① 피고인 스스로도 당심에서 '이 사건 환풍구가 시공된 이후 그 위에 올라가 꿀렁거리는지 여부 등을 확인하였다'는 취지로 증언하였는바, 공사감리자인 피고인 로서는 자신이 승인한 이 사건 환풍구의 상세시공도면과 다르게 그레이팅이 분절되어 있다는 사실을 충분히 인식할 수 있었을 것으로 보이는 점, ② '공사감리자로서 AQ블록의 주요 검측 또는 현장 요청에 의한 검측이 필요한 경우가 아니면 이 사건 환풍구 인근을 지나다닐 일이 없었다'는 취지의 당심 증인 JX의 증언이나 그 밖에 피고인 I 및 그 변호인이 당심에 제출한 증거들만으로는 피고인 이 이 사건 환풍구의 시공상태를 인식하고 있었음을 인정함에 방해가 되지 않는 점 등을 종합하여 보면, 피고인 이 원심 판시 범죄사실 기재와 같이 자신이 승인한 상세시공도면과 달리 시공되어 있는 이 사건 환풍구 현장상황을 확인하고도 공사시공자에게 그 시정이나 재시공을 요청하지 아니하고 방치하였음을 충분히 인정할 수 있다. 따라서 원심의 이 부분 판단은 정당하고, 거기에 피고인 이 주장하는 바와 같은 사실오인 내지 법리오해의 위법이 없으므로, 피고인 I 및 그 변호인의 이 부분 사실오인 및 법리오해 주장은 받아들이지 않는다.

E. Regarding the prosecutor's assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles (Defendant D)

1) Summary of the facts charged

On October 16, 2014, the day before the event is held, Defendant D received a certified copy of the ‘acting contract for the exercise of this case' from AY, a working person at AY side, and around 20:00 on the same day, “BE shall establish various safety measures to cope thoroughly with human and material accidents in the event service, and shall settle all accidents that occur during the event at E's responsibility and cost. In such a case, Defendant D wishes to perform the obligation as provided for in the above contract, and if it is considered that the content of the contract is unreasonable or it is not binding in formality form, it is clear that the content of the contract will not be implemented in contact with AY side immediately, and it is clear that the subject of safety management will take the safety measures in this case by making it clear whether the subject of safety management will take the safety measures in this case.

Although it had been required to take any action, there is negligence that the exercise of this case was carried out without any safety control measure.

When preparing for the event, Defendant D had a duty of care to establish and implement a series of safety management measures to eliminate the causes of accidents that may occur during the event, such as 1.2 c. (1) and (a) (i.e., the establishment of safety management measures and the negligence of supervision in preparation for the event) as indicated in the holding, as the organizer of the event of this case, who entered into an event with AY as the joint organizer of the event of this case, and had been engaged in the event of this case for about 15 years, and was well aware that he had a duty of care to perform such measures on the part of the host, and ordinarily was performing such measures at the host agency, and instructed the event agency to conduct the event of this case.

Nevertheless, Defendant D did not establish and implement any measure regarding safety management while preparing for the proceeding of the instant event. Defendant D was negligent in performing the instant event without any safety management measures, as the joint organizer did not verify the consultation on safety measures with AY or support headquarters, which is a joint organizer.

○ Negligence in neglect of safety management at the event site

Defendant D, from October 17, 2014, when preparing events, such as the installation of a stage and the installation of an event room, did not have a division indicating the boundaries of the event site. Defendant D was not installed with safety fences, safety lines, warning signs, etc. to block people’s access to the instant repungs, which are dangerous facilities, and safety personnel controlling people were not posted. Even if it was found that there were no safety personnel, etc. responsible for controlling people, Defendant D was negligent in exercising the instant event without any safety management measures, by requesting a joint organizer to take such measures or by carrying out actions, such as taking one’s own measures.

Defendant D, at around 17:40 on October 17, 2014, the date of the instant event, Defendant D, at around 17:40, failed to take safety measures against the danger situation at the time of the event, had shown a light view that many people are going to participate in the event, and thus, Defendant D, who has overall control over the progress of the instant event, failed to take any measures, such as immediately getting people out of the repath of the instant repath of the instant repath, through employees belonging to the said organization or employees participating in the event. However, Defendant D was negligent by failing to take any measures, in addition to taking one-time the voice of “DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD” to the people.

2) The judgment of the court below

In full view of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the records of the instant case, the lower court determined that Defendant D cannot be deemed as having a duty of due care as stated in the facts charged on the ground that it is reasonable to deem that Defendant D merely limited to the preparation of equipment necessary for the progress of the event, such as stage production, smoke, process, event, symbol sculptures, etc., and that safety management was not included.

① Safety Clause contained in the event agency contract of this case is nothing more than the phrase “AY” prepared by AY and BE in consultation with BY, and there was no agreement between the parties in the process of formulating the previous contract form. In other words, as indicated in the facts charged, the event agency contract of this case was prepared by modifying only ‘the name of the event’, ‘price’, and ‘day’ using the pre-existing contract form, and ‘BY’ to the effect that the 3rd party did not request the safety management officer to present the contract at the time of signing the event contract of this case (see, e.g., e., e., e., “AY” and ‘YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY.

(2) AYAE has used "2012 BL metrics" under the overall control of AY. AY staff member who is in charge of the above event practice refers to "AY's event and safety management consultation shall be conducted in a way that the KAE prepares a safety management plan and explains the safety management plan to the KAY and continues to cooperate with the KAE." (Article 10:7068, 7268, 7269 of the event). There is no request from AY or BB for consultation with BE. AY's explanation submitted by BE to A in connection with the calculation of the price of the event service (Article 328-33 of the event). AY employee who is in charge of the above event is not described as "AUU event on the side of AY B and AZ," and the testimony is not mentioned as "BY 290, 293, 200, 300, 30,000).

③ During the process of the instant event, A, a person in charge of AY’s 7-8 degree, B, and B visited without water (A’s testimony 30 pages, B’s testimony 27 pages, A’s testimony 15 pages, 662 pages), and A, considering that B was a dangerous element between AW building and main stage around the event site and instructed A to prepare for it, B, around October 15, 2014, and there was no discussion or direction with B on safety management (30 pages, B’s testimony 27, 30, 31, 15, 153, and 62 days). In light of the fact that B and B were not in charge of safety management, B did not appear to have discussed or instructed B with B regarding safety management (see, e.g., e., Supreme Court Decision 2014Da15320, Oct. 15, 201).

④ Even according to the “Report on Plan for Holding of AU Festival” 2014 regarding the instant event exchanged between AY B and BBD, one of the main agents, BC, and BD (B, in the event of a safety accident, directly contact with the relevant agencies in the event of an emergency, such as life damage) is given priority, and the name of BB, such as BZ and DP, is stated as a person in charge of safety accidents at the event site, and BE is not recorded in the column related to safety accidents (see, e.g., e., the 216 pages).

⑤ After the instant exchange wind hole collapse accident occurred, BR (BE employee) and BI (official in charge of the event at the time of the event, even if it is based on an oral dialogue between BR and BI (official in charge of the work as a staff in charge of the work at the event site), BI merely referred to “B” as “AY and BB” and did not refer to BE (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 1269Da1269, 9 BR testimony at the event site, 9 BR testimony at the trial date).

⑥ AY측은 수사과정에서 이 사건 행사장에 회사직원 35명을 행사요원으로 참가시켰다고 주장하였고, B는 이 사건 행사 직전에 AY측 직원들에게 "행사장에 도착하면 스텝조끼, 패찰 및 경광봉을 수령한 후 행사장에서 안전담당 업무 등을 수행하여 달라"는 메시지를 보냈는바(행사 1권 315, 316면, 8권 5452면), 이는 AY측이 행사안전담 당자임을 반증하는 것이라 할 것이다.

⑦ A은 이 사건 사고 발생 다음날 2014. 10. 18. 18:05경 AY 회장 DQ에게 "회 장님, 돌파구가 보이는 듯합니다. 우리(AY측)가 안전을 나름 많이 챙겼어요. …(중략)… 또 BB에게도 안전요원 배치하라고 해서... 그래서 걔들이 4명을 배치했는데, 걔들이 완전 업무를 안 했습니다"라는 내용의 문자메시지를 보내기도 하였다(행사 8권 5416, 5417, 5278면 이하 참조), 이 사건 행사를 기획하고 전체적으로 총괄하는 A으로서는 이 사건 발생일과 다음날까지 변호사와 상담을 마친 상태였는데, 만약 이 법정에서 주장하는 바와 같이 BE가 안전관리 책임이 있고 또한 행사 전에 'BE가 안전요원을 10명 보내기로 하였다'는 말을 들었다면, 마당히 그 회장에게 '안전관리 책임을 맡기로 한 BE가 제대로 안전요원을 보내지도 않고 안전관리도 하지 않았다'고 보고해야 할 것임에도, 그러한 내용으로 보고하지 아니한 이유는 이 사건 행사에 관한 안전관리 책임은 AY측(적어도 BB과 공동으로) 담당하기로 하였기 때문이고 AY측은 그 담당자가 아니기 때문이라 할 것이다.

8) On October 15, 2014, before the instant event title, B visited the branch police station to receive safety education on the event site on October 15, 2014 in relation to the issue of the request for cooperation in the safety support at the event site, due to the fact that the police officer in charge was unable to harm the safety management of the instant event, and that safety management was conducted by himself/herself, even though he/she entered BB in relation to the safety management measures, BE did not make any doubt about the safety management (Article 10, 7284, 7285 of the event).

④ The agency contract, which Defendant D first made in relation to the instant event contract, did not have a clause on BE’s safety responsibility (see, e.g., 5:399-3402), and even if employees BH did not send the said document to AY, it was found that the contract was made using the form kept in the company. However, even if Defendant D’s internal intent was examined, it did not seem that safety management was e.g., in terms of safety management.

(10) As seen earlier, while preparing for the event of this case, AY’s “DN” in contact with each other and out of the beginning. AY side submitted a written estimate of KRW 300 million to employ more than 70 human resources, including safety personnel suitable for the scale of the event. AY side requested the BE only for the minimum items necessary for holding the event, such as the stage installation, and the part of the safety management was deemed to be dealt with on its own. However, it is difficult to view that BE (Defendant D) only one of the parties to the contract, raises an objection to the safety management provision, demands revision of the terms and conditions of the contract, and is in a fiduciary position to clarify who is the subject to safety management measures, or has legal duty of care.

3) Determination of the immediate deliberation

The burden of proof for the facts constituting an offense prosecuted in a criminal trial is to be borne by a public prosecutor, and the conviction is to be based on evidence with probative value, which makes the judge feel true beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore, if there is no such evidence, even if there is doubt as to the defendant’s guilt, it is inevitable to determine the benefit of the defendant (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do14731, Dec. 23, 2010).

In addition to the circumstances decided by the court below, comprehensively considering the following circumstances, it is difficult to view that Defendant D violated the duty of care as stated in the above facts charged even if it violated such duty of care. Therefore, the court below is just in holding Defendant D not guilty of the above facts charged, and there is no error of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles as alleged by the prosecutor, and thus, the prosecutor's allegation of misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles is rejected.

① The witness at the trial testified to the effect that “AZ and B” was aware that the event safety management responsibility of this case was borne by BE, and in particular, B testified that “AY advertising business director at the time, B was responsible for safety management,” and the testimony was made that “AZ is in conflict with BE (Defendant D) with the advertising business director at the time.” However, it is difficult to conclude that the testimony of AZ and B of the trial witness at the trial had a duty of care as stated in the above facts charged with the Defendant D in relation to the duty of care, such as the above facts charged.

② In light of various circumstances decided by the lower court, including the conclusion of the contract with AY and BE, the process of the instant event, the details of the documents prepared in the process, and the attitude of the relevant persons, etc., it is difficult to recognize that Defendant D violated its duty of care as stated in the above facts charged, on the sole basis of the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor at the trial or alleged circumstances

F. As to each assertion on unfair sentencing

1) On the grounds of common sentencing, 27 visitors were killed and wounded from among the visitors who see the public performance above at the exit due to the collapse of the exit of this case. Among 25 visitors who fall into the cement floor below 18.5 meters from the vertical fall short of 18.5 meters, 16 passengers were killed and nine serious injuries resulting from the Defendants’ breach of the Defendants’ duty of care. In the process of construction, the exit of this case was left neglected to perform construction or construction without the project supervisor’s approval so that the Defendants engaged in rashing the rash without their own discretion and failed to confirm the state of construction of the exit of this case, and the project supervisor failed to perform construction or construction so as to considerably fall short of the originally scheduled strength. The Defendants’ failure to formulate safety control measures or safety control at the exit of this case, and eventually, the occurrence of the accident and the possibility of avoiding the possibility of the collapse of the exit of this case led to the occurrence of the accident to the victims. Accordingly, the possibility of the occurrence of the accident and the possibility of avoiding all other Defendants.

Meanwhile, prior to the commission of the instant crime, the Defendants were members of a usual society who had lived in good faith without any criminal history. After the instant accident occurred, KRW 11,968,727,551 (a total of KRW 6,995,030,320, and KRW 4,973,697,231 for the victims of the instant accident, and KRW 11,973,697,231 for the total of KRW 3,871,798,798,050, and KRW 2,8,096,929,50 for the victims of the instant accident, and KRW 16,00 for the victims of the instant accident and the victims of the injury were paid to the victims of the instant accident (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da15501, Apr. 2, 2016).

2) Defendant A

Although Defendant A planning the instant event as the president of the headquarters of AY, the organizer of the instant event, and is in the position of the responsible manager in charge of overall control over the event, Defendant A did not check and supervise the process of preparation for the instant event and the establishment and implementation of safety control measures, and did not take safety inspection-related measures at the event site on the day of the instant event, Defendant A’s failure to visit the lower part of the event, and neglected to put many people to the point of collapse to the point of collapse.

However, prior to the crime of this case, Defendant A had lived with a journalist without any criminal record before the crime of this case, and all of the crimes of this case were recognized in the trial of the court of first instance, and the defendant AY was detained at the time of the pronouncement of the judgment of the court below for seven months and is in depth divided into confinement life for 15 days. Defendant AY paid damages to victims after the occurrence of the accident of this case with BB, and agreed with the bereaved family members of the deceased victims and the victims of the injury during the trial of the court of the court below, and the victims and their bereaved family members wished to take the action of Defendant A, the victims and their bereaved family members want to take the action of Defendant A, and other various circumstances that form the conditions for sentencing in this case including the defendant A's age, character and behavior, environment, family relationship, circumstances after the crime of this case, and the sentencing of the similar case of the public prosecutor's above grounds for appeal are without merit.

3) Defendant B

Defendant B, the organizer of the instant event, was the director of the advertising business bureau of AY, and was in charge of preparing detailed contents with subordinate employees under the direction of A, but did not establish and implement safety management measures in the process of the instant event, but neglected safety management at the event site on the day of the instant event, and neglected to attract many people to the extent that it might collapse.

However, prior to the crime of this case, Defendant B did not have any record of criminal punishment as well as the punishment of fine two times before the crime of this case was committed, and all of the crimes of this case were recognized as being in depth and reflected by Defendant B, together with Defendant B’s family members after the occurrence of the accident of this case and damage to the victims from the accident of this case, and agreed with the victims of the death and their bereaved family members during the judgment of the court of the court below, and the victims and their bereaved family members were faced with each other after the decision of the court below was rendered. Accordingly, the victims and their bereaved family members want to be faced with the Defendant B’s wife, and they want to be faced with the Defendant B’s wife’s wife, and other various circumstances, including Defendant B’s age, character and conduct, environment, family relationship, circumstances after the crime, and sentencing of similar cases, etc., the judgment of the court below is somewhat unreasonable. Thus, Defendant B and the aforementioned prosecutor’s assertion of unfair sentencing is without merit.

4) Defendant C. Defendant C.: (a) was in the position of a general manager of BB in relation to the instant event as the head of the BB Support Headquarters that jointly hosted the instant event; (b) did not confirm and supervise the establishment and implementation of safety control measures in the process of preparation for the instant event; and (c) did not take safety inspection-related measures at the event site on the day of the instant event; and (d) did not neglect to attract a large number of people to the extent that it would collapse without checking the load. Although the role and proportion of BB in the process of preparation for the instant event was not large compared to AY, Defendant C’s negligence was also a significant cause for the instant event of the instant event, even though Defendant C’s negligence was denied the crime up to the trial, and the responsibility was transferred to another Defendant, and thus, is not weak.

However, Defendant C appears to have lived with the victims without any criminal history before the crime of this case, together with the BBO AY to which Defendant C belongs, compensated for damages to the victims after the accident of this case occurred and the trial at the trial at the court of the original instance, and agreed with the victims of the death and their bereaved families during the trial at the trial at the trial at the court of the original instance, and thereby, the victims and their bereaved families want to take the action of Defendant C, and taking into account the various circumstances, including Defendant C’s age, character, character, environment, family relationship, circumstances after the crime, and sentencing of the same similar case, the lower court’s punishment is somewhat inappropriate, and thus, the allegation of unfair sentencing by the Defendant C and their defense counsel is well-grounded, and the prosecutor’s allegation of unfair sentencing is without merit.

5) Defendant E

Defendant E, as the head of K, who is the contractor of the AP new construction project, including the instant exchange wind hole, was the head of K, in charge of the process management and construction work, and did not perform any management and supervision over the change of the sub-Suspension district of the instant exchange wind hole, and neglected to perform the construction work so that M of the non-registered business entity, who was sub-subcontracted from L, a subcontractor, has a significantly lower structure than the detailed construction drawings approved by the project supervisor, because he did not perform any management and supervision. The negligence by Defendant E, which led to the collapse of the instant exchange wind hole, was an important cause for executing the instant exchange wind hole with weak ability. Ultimately, even if Defendant E was destroyed due to the accident of the instant exchange wind hole, there was no specific fact-finding up to the trial, and thus, Defendant E is highly responsible for the instant crime. On the other hand, prior to the crime of this case, Defendant E appears to have been under good faith and without any criminal punishment.

In full view of the above circumstances and other circumstances, including Defendant E’s age, character and conduct, environment, family relationship, circumstances after the crime, and sentencing of the same similar case, etc., the lower court’s punishment is too heavy or unreasonable. Thus, each of the above arguments of unfair sentencing by Defendant E, his defense counsel, and the prosecutor are not acceptable.

6) Defendant F

Defendant F neglected to perform construction in a way that M is considerably lower than the detailed execution drawings approved by the project supervisor because he did not resubcontract part of subcontracted construction work to M who is a registered business entity, even though he/she was in a position to exercise overall control over the subcontracted construction work as L’s representative director, including the re-subcontracting hole of this case, among the AP New Construction Works, who was subcontracted the construction work from K, without any arrangement of a national technical qualification holder corresponding to the relevant process. The negligence by Defendant F was an important cause for executing the instant re-subcontracting the instant re-subcontracting construction work, and eventually, Defendant F was at risk of collapse, leading to the collapse of the instant wave of this case, and Defendant F’s failure to reach the conclusion of the judgment by the victims and the victims, and thus, his/her responsibility is heavy.

Meanwhile, prior to the instant crime, Defendant F was only punished by a minor fine several times, and there is no record of having been punished for the same crime, taking into account circumstances such as the fact that Defendant F was punished for the same crime.

In full view of the above circumstances and other circumstances, including Defendant F’s age, character and conduct, environment, family relationship, circumstances after the crime, and sentencing of the same similar case, etc., the lower court’s punishment is too heavy or unreasonable. Thus, each of the above unfair sentencing arguments by Defendant F, his defense counsel, and the prosecutor are rejected.

7) Defendant G

Defendant G, as the actual operator of an unregistered business entity M who was sub-subcontracted by L with part of metal construction, including the re-subcontracting hole of this case, was in the position to exercise overall control over the relevant sub-subcontracting construction work. Defendant G, in consultation with J, had the construction supervisor perform construction so that it has a significantly lower structure than the detailed construction drawings approved by the construction supervisor, such as cutting off the spouting of the spouting hole of this case. The negligence by Defendant G was an important cause for the construction of the spouting hole of this case. Ultimately, even if the collapse of the spouting hole of this case led to the collapse of the spout hole of this case, Defendant G denied the crime up to the judgment of the court, and the victims and victims were not subject to any agreement.

On the other hand, there is no particular criminal punishment except for the punishment once before the crime of this case is committed by Defendant G prior to the crime of this case. Although Defendant G denied the re-subcontract at the early stage of the investigation, it appears that he would cooperate with the investigation about the facts that were late later.

In full view of the above circumstances and other circumstances, including Defendant G’s age, character and conduct, environment, family relationship, circumstances after the crime, and sentencing of the same similar case, etc., the lower court’s punishment is too heavy or unreasonable. Thus, each of the above arguments of unfair sentencing by Defendant G, his defense counsel, and the prosecutor are not acceptable.

8) Defendant H

Defendant H, even though Defendant H was the vice-contractor of a non-registered company M, who was sub-subcontracted with L to re-subcontracting part of metal construction, including the re-subcontracting of this case, ordered on-site crew members to have a structure to have a significantly lower level than the detailed construction execution drawings approved by the project supervisor, such as cutting off the sprinking of the instant sprinking. The negligence by Defendant H was an important cause for executing the instant sprinking of the instant sprinking, which led to the collapse of the instant sprinking hole, and eventually, Defendant H was denied criminal acts up to the trial, and the responsibility for the failure to reach an agreement with the victims is not weak.

On the other hand, there are extenuating circumstances such as the fact that Defendant H appears to have lived faithfully before committing the instant crime without any criminal punishment, and that he seems to have immediately known the fact relevance during the investigation process and have cooperated with the investigation.

In full view of the above circumstances and other circumstances, including Defendant H’s age, character and conduct, environment, family relationship, circumstances after the crime, and sentencing of the same similar case, etc., the lower court’s punishment is too heavy or unreasonable. Thus, each of the above unfair sentencing arguments by Defendant H, his defense counsel, and the prosecutor are rejected.

9) Defendant I

As a certified architect belonging to Defendant AS, Defendant A did not take any particular measure despite having been fully aware that the construction status of the exchange wind hole in this case was executed differently from the detailed construction drawings approved by him, in a position in charge of supervising AP block, including the exchange wind hole in this case. Although Defendant I’s negligence led to the collapse of the exchange wind hole in this case, Defendant I denied the crime up to the trial and did not reach an agreement with the victims, and thus, his responsibility is not weak.

However, prior to the crime of this case, there are circumstances to take into account the circumstances, such as the fact that prior to the crime of this case, Defendant appears to have lived faithfully without criminal punishment.

In full view of the above circumstances and other circumstances, including Defendant 1’s age, character and conduct, environment, family relationship, circumstances after the crime, and sentencing of the same similar case, etc., the lower court’s punishment is too heavy or is deemed unreasonable. Thus, each of the above arguments on unfair sentencing by the Defendant, his defense counsel, and the prosecutor are rejected.

10) Defendant J

Defendant J, as the Vice Minister of K, was in charge of the process management of the execution of the instant exchange wind hole, was in charge of the instant exchange wind hole construction, and was requested to change the design to perform the instant exchange wind hole construction without examining structural safety. Defendant J approved the alteration of design without examining the structural safety. Defendant J, who was re-subcontracted by L, a subcontractor, without obtaining confirmation from the project supervisor, had the subcontractor, complete the construction so that the M was considerably less than the detailed execution drawings approved by the project supervisor. The negligence by the Defendant J was a critical cause for executing the instant exchange wind hole to be considerably less capable of executing the instant exchange wind hole construction. Ultimately, even if the collapse of the instant exchange wind hole due to the accident led to the collapse of the instant exchange wind hole, Defendant J disputes over specific facts up to the trial, and denied the crime, and was not likely to reach an agreement with the victims, and thus, is very liable.

On the other hand, prior to the crime of this case, Defendant J seems to have lived faithfully without criminal records, except for punishment for minor fines only once before committing the crime of this case.

In full view of the above circumstances and other circumstances, including Defendant J’s age, character and conduct, environment, family relationship, circumstances after the commission of the crime, and sentencing of the same similar case, the lower court’s punishment is too heavy or is deemed unreasonable. Thus, each of the above unfair sentencing arguments by Defendant J, its defense counsel, and the prosecutor are rejected.

11) Defendant K

Defendant K’s employee, E, BO, and J did not work in accordance with the detailed execution drawings confirmed by the project supervisor with respect to the duties of Defendant K, and thus, the nature of the crime is not weak. In full view of the sentencing of the same similar case and the various circumstances under which the sentencing conditions for Defendant K as indicated in the instant case are attached to the sentencing of the same and similar cases, the lower court’s sentence is too unreasonable, and thus, the allegation of unfair sentencing by Defendant K and its counsel is not acceptable.

12) Defendant L

As the representative of Defendant L, F, who is a representative of Defendant L, re-subcontracts a specialized work that was subcontracted to others with respect to the Defendant L’s business, the nature of the offense is not weak. In full view of the sentencing of similar cases and the various circumstances, which are the conditions for sentencing on the Defendant L as indicated in the instant case, the lower court’s punishment is deemed to be too excessive or unreasonable, and thus, the allegation of unfair sentencing by Defendant L, his defense counsel, and the prosecutor

13) The G and its employees, the representative of Defendant MM, did not work in accordance with the detailed execution drawings confirmed by the project supervisor with respect to the work of Defendant M., and without registering the G, running a specialized construction business without registering the relevant business, and the nature of the relevant crime is not weak. In full view of the sentencing of similar cases and the various circumstances setting the sentencing conditions for Defendant M as indicated in this case, the lower court’s punishment is too heavy or unreasonable, and thus, it is deemed that the Defendant M, its defense counsel, and the prosecutor’s respective arguments on unfair sentencing are not acceptable.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, since the appeal by the defendant A, B, and C is reasonable, the part of the judgment of the court below against the defendant A, B, and C is reversed pursuant to Article 364 (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and it is again decided as follows ( insofar as the appeal by the defendant A, B, and C is accepted and the part against the defendant A, B, and C of the judgment below is reversed, the prosecutor's appeal against the defendant A, B, and C of the judgment below shall not be dismissed in the disposition of the court below), the defendant E, F, G, H, H, I, J,K,K, and M and the prosecutor's appeal against the defendant D, E, F, G, H, I,H, L, L, and M are dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that each appeal against the defendant D, G, H, H, H, and M is groundless (However, "1. concurrent criminal defendant E, G, G, H, He, H, and J" (the judgment of the court below is corrected ex officio, M, M, M].

Criminal facts and summary of evidence

The summary of the facts charged against Defendant A, B, and C and the summary of the evidence recognized by this court is as follows: (a) except for the addition of “1. Defendant A and B’s statutory statement” to the summary of the evidence, since all of the judgment below is the same as the corresponding columns to Defendant A, B, and C; and (b) thus, they are cited as it is in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Application of Statutes

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

Defendant A, B, and C: Articles 268 and 30 of the Criminal Code

1. Commercial competition;

Defendant A, B, and C: Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Code

1. Selection of punishment;

Defendant A, B, and C: Selection of imprisonment without prison labor

1. Suspension of execution;

Defendant A, B, and C: Article 62(1) of each Criminal Act (Taking into account the favorable circumstances among the reasons for reversal against the above Defendants)

Judges Jeon Soo-hoon

Judges Lee Jin-hee