Defendants shall be punished by a fine of KRW 6,000,000.

The above fines are imposed by the Defendants.

A. The sentence of the lower court against the Defendants (Defendant A: 4 months of imprisonment without prison labor and 2 years of suspended execution; 120 hours of community service order; 6 months of imprisonment without prison labor and 3 years of suspended execution; 200 hours of community service order) is too unreasonable.

B. The lower court’s sentence against the Defendants on the prosecutor is too unhued and unreasonable.

Judgment

We also examine the Defendants and the Prosecutor’s arguments.

Defendant A is the head of the working team of this case, and Defendant B neglected his duty of care to prevent the crash by providing safety caps to employees, etc. as a person in charge of the instant construction work, and due to his negligence, the injured person suffered injury requiring at least eight weeks of medical treatment while carrying out fin removal work. In light of the content of the crime, the circumstances unfavorable to the Defendants, such as the fact that the relevant crime is heavy, are recognized.

However, in light of the fact that the Defendants led to the confession of the crime of this case, and that the victim did not want the punishment of the Defendants by agreement with the victim when the Defendants reached the judgment of the court of first instance, and that the Defendants’ family members, etc. wanted to escape the preference against the Defendants, etc., it seems obvious that there is no criminal history of the same kind, Defendant A did not have any criminal history, and Defendant B was an initial offender without criminal punishment so far, and other circumstances that form the conditions for sentencing as specified in the argument of this case, such as the Defendants’ age, sexual behavior, environment, etc., were taken into account, the lower court’s punishment against the Defendants is too unreasonable rather than unfair, because it is too unreasonable.

Therefore, the defendants' improper assertion of sentencing is justified, and the prosecutor's improper assertion of sentencing is without merit.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364 (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the defendants' appeal is justified.