(b) Injury by occupational negligence;

C. Violation of the Occupational Safety and Health Act

2.(a) B

3.(a)(b) C

[Defendant-Appellee]

A. Defendants

The punishment of the court below (the punishment of the defendant A: one year of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, one year of imprisonment without prison labor for the defendant B, two years of suspended execution, six months of imprisonment without prison labor for the defendant C, two years of suspended execution) is too unreasonable.

(b) Prosecutors;

The sentence of the court below (the sentence of the defendant A: one year of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, one year of imprisonment without prison labor for the defendant B, two years of suspended execution, six months of imprisonment without prison labor for the defendant C, two years of suspended execution) is too unfluent and unfair.

2. Determination

The Defendants were at a disadvantage to the Defendants, including the fact that eight workers were at a disadvantage due to the instant crime, such as the violation of the Defendants’ safety awareness and duty of care, by paying consolation money to the bereaved families of the victims who died at the D Co., Ltd., and the injury of other three workers were at a position of final responsibility for the process management of the instant factory as the safety and health management manager and the supervisor. However, the Defendants recognized all the Defendants’ negligence in the process of the trial, and are at a disadvantage to the Defendants. Meanwhile, the Defendants were subject to disciplinary action, such as taking responsibility for responding to the outcome of the instant case and taking measures for dismissal or removal from office, etc., and the Defendants appeared to have committed a serious crime against the victims. Considering that the Defendants were at a disadvantage, there was no reason to deem that the Defendants were at a disadvantage to the victims, such as giving consolation money, promising the victims to provide school expenses to their children, and those victims who were at the time of their injuries, as well as their charges, and there were no reason to deem the Defendants’ motive, motive, and circumstances of the crime.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the appeal by the defendants and the prosecutor is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act since all the appeals by the defendants and the prosecutor are without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition

judge-in-law

Judges Park Jae-chul