2. The Defendants appear to repent of their mistakes, and the Defendants agreed with the bereaved family members of the victim’s bereaved family members and the bereaved family members want to leave the Defendants, and Defendant B was the first offender who had no record of criminal punishment, etc. are favorable to the Defendants.

However, the lower court appears to have determined punishment by fully taking into account the favorable circumstances for the Defendants, and there was no change of circumstances that would vary between the lower court and the punishment against the Defendants, and the Defendants did not take basic safety measures, such as the failure to install a fall prevention facility at all even if they were to undertake construction in the building with the fourth-five height of the fourth-five floors. In full view of the equity in sentencing with the same similar case, as well as other factors that are the conditions for sentencing, such as the Defendants’ age, character and conduct, motive for the instant crime, and circumstances after the instant crime, it is unreasonable to deem that each of the lower judgment’s punishment against the Defendants is too unreasonable.

Therefore, the Defendants’ assertion is without merit.

3. The Defendants’ appeal is without merit, and all of them are dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.