The defendant is innocent. The summary of this judgment shall be notified publicly.

A. The judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case without a violation of duty of care and there was no causation between the defendant's act and the accident of this case.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence (8 months of imprisonment without prison labor, 2 years of suspended execution, and 80 hours of community service) is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the Defendant and the prosecutor ex officio, the prosecutor applied for changes in the indictment of this case as described in the third paragraph (a) above, and the subject of the judgment by the court was changed by granting permission. Thus, the judgment of the court below was no longer maintained.

However, despite the above reasons for ex officio destruction, the defendant's assertion of misapprehension of legal principles is still subject to the judgment of the court within the scope of the modified facts charged, and the following changes are examined.

3. Judgment on the Defendant’s assertion of misapprehension of legal principles

A. The summary of the revised facts charged is a driver of the B accusation vehicle (one-one Scar car).

Around 08:00 on August 10, 2017, the Defendant, along with the Victim C (52 years of age), was engaged in the work of moving 25 mix asbestos slate to the roof of the above church (10m above the height thereof) by using the vehicle in which “a shot bell-shaped device installed at the bottom of the post-crow scar)” without obtaining type approval from the scar, and a ske-shaped device installed at the bottom of the post-cke scar, and the equipment connected with the aforementioned device to move the object.”

In such a case, the Defendant is prohibited from carrying out the “cateral work”, such as moving goods by using the refrat without type approval, and even if doing so, the Defendant shall not carry out the said work.