Therefore, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged of this case is erroneous.

2. Determination

A. The crime of violation of Articles 66-2 and 23(1) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act is established only where an employer orders a workplace operated by himself/herself to take safety measures as prescribed by the regulations, without taking safety measures as prescribed by Article 23(1) of the same Act, or neglects such measures despite being aware of the fact that the workplace is taking safety measures without taking such measures, and thus, the act of violation is deemed to have been committed by the business owner. However, it is not established solely on the fact that the workplace of the business owner did not take safety measures as above without taking such dangerous measures at the place of business.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2006Do8874 Decided March 29, 2007, etc.). B.

In addition to the circumstances acknowledged by the lower court, the following circumstances acknowledged by the record are as follows: (a) Defendant Company was the husband of Defendant C, who was the representative director; (b) Defendant C was using L as cerebral blood around December 2010; (c) Defendant C was the legal representative of Defendant C; and (d) Defendant C was the actual manager; (b) Defendant C was the legal representative of the Seoul and his residence; (c) Defendant C was responsible for the duties of Han forest branch as the head of the branch office; (d) Defendant C was the head of the branch office, and employees K, and C stated that Defendant C did not have any one time at the Han forest branch before the instant accident; and (e) Defendant C was the witness B did not have any deficit at the Han forest branch before the instant accident.