A. Defendant A’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles as to the death of an employee due to Defendant A’s violation of safety measures (hereinafter “Defendant A”) is not a “business owner” who is a person obligated to take safety measures under Article 23(1)2 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act.

In addition, the Defendant, who is the official chief of the Defendant C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Co., Ltd.”) and the rest victims, did not neglect the notification of the fact that the contact is being performed without taking safety measures, and the Defendant could not at all expect the victims to contact. Thus, the Defendant does not constitute an offender under Article 71 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act.

Nevertheless, the court below convicted the defendant of the facts charged in this case. The court below erred by misunderstanding the facts and misunderstanding the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. Even if the facts charged of this case against the Defendant claiming unfair sentencing of the Defendants are found guilty, in light of the fact that the Defendants did not have the same force as this case, and that the victims did not want to punish the Defendants since they agreed with the bereaved families of the victims who died and the rest victims, and that the Defendants suffered a big loss exceeding 1.6 billion won due to the accident of this case, the sentence imposed by the lower court (Defendant A: one year of suspended sentence, two years of suspended sentence, and seven million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. (1) In light of the reasoning of the lower judgment regarding Defendant A’s assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, it is obvious that the Defendant is deemed an actor who is not an employer under the Occupational Safety and Health Act, and thus, the allegation that the Defendant was erroneous as an employer is without merit.