As to the violation of the Occupational Safety and Health Act, the victim is not only the worker employed by the contractor of the defendant C, but also the actual employment relationship with the defendant C, so the defendants are not obligated to take safety measures against the victim.

Since misunderstanding of facts has occurred even though the Defendants took all safety measures such as providing safety education to on-site workers and providing safety protective equipment prior to the progress of construction, the Defendants could not have predicted the occurrence of the instant accident.

Since the crime of violating Article 66-2 and Article 23(1) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act is premised on the duty of the employer to take safety measures to protect his/her employees, there is a substantial employment relationship between the employer and the employee.

(2) The Defendants are not obligated to take measures to prevent industrial accidents against workers employed by the contractors under a contract with the Defendant C pursuant to Articles 66-2 and 23(1) of the Industrial Safety and Health Act. However, in the instant case, the Defendants are not obligated to take measures to prevent industrial accidents against workers employed by the contractors when part of the business conducted in the same place under a contract is performed under Articles 68 Subparag. 2 and 29(2) of the same Act.

As long as there was a substantial employment relationship between Defendant C and the victim, the contractor of the new construction of the instant case, even if there was no substantial employment relationship between Defendant C and the victim.

The Defendants are obligated to take measures to prevent industrial accidents pursuant to Article 29(2) of the same Act for victims who are workers employed by the contractor.

. Defendants