A. In fact, Defendant D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “D”) awarded a subcontract for all of the instant steel reinforced concrete construction to C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C”), and thus does not constitute a business owner under Article 29(1) of the Industrial Safety and Health Act (hereinafter “Act”).

(2) Defendant D had no substantial employment relationship with workers who performed work in the instant field. As such, Defendant D did not have a duty to take safety measures under Article 23(1) and (3) of the Industrial Safety and Health Act.

(3) There is no relation between the violation of the duty to take measures to prevent industrial accidents as pointed out in the facts charged of the instant case and the victim’s death.

B. The punishment of the lower court (the Defendants: KRW 6 million for each of the Defendants) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. (1) A business owner referred to in Article 29(3) of the Act shall take measures to prevent industrial accidents as prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Labor when a person employed by the contractor engages in work at a place where there is a risk of industrial accidents as prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Labor.

The term "business owner under paragraph (1)" means the business owner of a business prescribed by Presidential Decree among "a business that is carried out in the same place and takes part of the business under a contract (paragraph (1))" and "a business that consists of part of a project under a contract and takes part of a specialized area under a contract (paragraph (2)."

Article 29(1) of the Act is partially amended by Act No. 10968, Jul. 25, 2011. The purpose and reason for the amendment is not only where a part of the project is awarded a contract, but also where the project is performed by granting a contract for a specialized process, it is required to manage the overall site.