2. The circumstances are favorable, such as the Defendant’s deep reflects the instant crime, the fact that the Defendant agreed with the bereaved family members of the Deceased, the fact that the bereaved family members of the Deceased paid industrial accident compensation insurance money, the Defendant did not have any particular criminal record in addition to the fine once before 15 years, and the Defendant’s occupational negligence death case against the Deceased was suspended from prosecution.

However, it is necessary to respect the judgment of the court below on the ground that there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the court below's decision because new sentencing data have not been submitted at the court below. The crime of this case was committed in a place where the victim is at risk of falling, but failed to take measures to prevent industrial accidents due to fall, causing the death of the victim. The violation of the duty to take safety measures of this case is serious, and the degree of violation of the duty to take safety measures of this case is not easy. In full view of the circumstances and result of the crime of this case, the circumstances after the crime of this case, character and behavior, environment, age, etc. of the defendant, the sentencing of the court below is too unreasonable.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.