In addition, the Defendants did not take safety measures.

Even if the accident in this case occurred, the victim did not work at the time of the occurrence of the accident in this case, and the accident in this case occurred in a place other than the work section after the completion of work, and the construction time and spatial imbalance is not recognized. In light of the place, time, time, etc. of the accident in this case, the accident in this case is not a safety accident but a traffic accident, and thus cannot be held liable to the defendants under the Occupational Safety and Health Act

2. The Defendants asserted the aforementioned purport in the lower court. As to this, the lower court stated to the effect that “P, at the police station around 16:30, the fact that the instant accident occurred in the process of organizing around the instant area, and ② the surrounding adjustment work conducted after the instant accident was conducted to move the roller parked on the road where the work is completed, which is a work site, to the construction site, and died. The construction site is a local highway No. 33, and the construction site is a local highway, and once daily work is completed due to the danger of traffic due to the traffic of the vehicle.” As such, the Defendants stated to the effect that “the instant roller was moved to the port as a scke, or the victim was stored into the excavated section by driving.” As such, the lower court acknowledged that the instant accident occurred in the course of organizing the surrounding area after the work, and ② the surrounding adjustment conducted after the main work is continuous and continuous for the convenience of the subsequent work.