On December 24, 2015, the Defendant: (a) intended to create a road from the village to the above farm site in order to facilitate the operation of the said farm site; (b) ordered H and the victim I (59 years old) to perform the packaging work on the section of about 140 meters from the entrance of the G residential site to the above farm site; and (c) ordered the victim to cut the surrounding trees at intervals similar to the packaging road section, with respect to the section of about 110 meters from the point at which the packaging is completed to the farm site.

The trees of which the Defendant directed the victim to take a punishment are 15m to 30m, etc., and the Defendant, who employed the victim, has a duty of care to consider the safety of the victim and prevent risks that may occur to life and body, considering the risk of the above timber work itself.

Nevertheless, due to occupational negligence, the Defendant neglected this, caused the victim to work mixedly without taking any safety gear or taking safety measures, and thereby, caused the victim's head to die, by shocking the back part of the victim's head, while using trees (15m high, 54m high, 54m high).

2. Determination:

A. The finding of guilt in a criminal trial ought to be based on evidence with probative value, which could lead a judge to have a conviction of having no reasonable doubt as to the facts charged, and even if such proof is insufficient, the conviction cannot be rendered against the Defendant even if there is suspicion of guilt (see Supreme Court Decision 2013Do7630, Mar. 27, 2014).