A. The Defendant, at the time of misunderstanding the facts or misapprehending the legal principles, has a duty of care to verify the condition of ropes, since he used the ropes provided by the victim.

In addition, even if the defendant's duty of care is recognized, it is difficult to recognize the causal relationship between the above breach of the duty of care and the accident in this case. Although the defendant did not have a duty of care to prevent the direction and supervisor of the work in this case or at least a joint manager from approaching the work site, the court below found the defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case. Thus, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles or misapprehending the legal principles.

B. The lower court’s sentence (2,500,000 won) against an unfair defendant in sentencing is too unreasonable.

Judgment

A. In light of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below's misunderstanding of facts or legal principles, and the following circumstances acknowledged by the F's legal statement at the court below, the court below is just in finding the defendant guilty of the above facts of the crime since it can be sufficiently recognized that the defendant neglected duty of care to move poppy with the driver while neglecting duty of care, thereby resulting in the victim's injury requiring about five weeks medical treatment. The court below did not err in the misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles as alleged by the defendant.

① Since the forking vehicle falls under a special equipment that mainly engages in the work of moving heavy objects, etc., the forking driver is obligated to operate the vehicle safely by preventing all accidents that may occur while connecting and moving things to the forking part of the forking part of the forking part of the forking part.

② At the time of the instant case, the victim connects string to the shower of poppy, and the Defendant took the above string.