A. Defendant A (1) misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles) Defendant A is a stock company F (hereinafter “F”).

(2) As a safety manager, ship block shipment work as indicated in the lower judgment (hereinafter “instant work”).

35 tons of the safety weight as stated in the judgment below (hereinafter “the shower of this case”).

Since there is no obligation to conduct a close inspection of the accident in this case, Defendant A was not negligent on duty. Although Defendant A was negligent on duty not preparing a safety work plan and not conducting a close inspection of the showers in this case, the accident in this case occurred due to occupational negligence in which Co-Defendant B used the showers in violation of the safety weight, and that Co-Defendant C, a field supervisor, did not wear the safety appearance for the victim, the court below found Defendant A guilty of the facts charged in this case, notwithstanding the absence of direct causal relationship between Defendant A’s above occupational negligence and the occurrence of the accident in this case, the court below erred in misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles in light of all the unfair sentencing sentencing sentencing conditions.

B. Although Defendant D’s mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles was negligent in the course of business in which Co-Defendant D did not prepare a safety work plan as a F’s safety manager and did not conduct a close inspection of the shower of this case, the accident of this case occurred due to the occupational negligence that Co-Defendant B used the shower of this case in violation of the safety weight and the occupational negligence that Co-Defendant C, a field supervisor, did not wear a safety appearance to the victim, so Defendant D’s above occupational negligence and the occurrence of the accident of this case did not have a direct causal relationship.