However, from the date of the final judgment of this case, each of the above two years against the Defendants.

Defendant

B is a person in charge of the construction site of the removal of the G factory in the operation of the F in the Silung-si, and the defendant A is a driver in the construction site of H 03 in the above construction site.

Defendant

B, around 11:00 on February 23, 2016, when ordering Defendant A, a driver of Poke at the above removal construction site, ordered Defendant A to carry an electrical victim I ( South, 48 years old) on the Pocker Back, without fulfilling the occupational duty of care to not allow Defendant A to carry a person on the Pocker Backer, while failing to perform such duty, and ordered the Defendant A to carry an electrical device on the Pocker Backer Back, and caused the victim to carry an electrical device on the Pocker Bac, and removed the 2nder 1strcker her surface without performing the duty of care to prevent the person from carrying a person on the Pocer Back, and caused Defendant A to remove the Pocer 2nder her on the ground that he did not perform the duty of care to prevent the person from carrying a ship on the Pocer her, and caused the victim to remove the 2nder her.

Summary of Evidence

1. The legal statement of the defendant A (as at the third public trial date);

1. Each legal statement of the witness F and J;

1. Some statements concerning the suspect interrogation protocol against the defendant B

1. Some of the police statements made against K and F, and the police statements made against L;

1. A report on investigation into a witness;

1. On-site photographs of the case;

1. Each medical certificate [Defendant B and his defense counsel] is employed by the F, a factory operator, and the defendant B merely participated in the removal work of this case as a daily worker, and it does not receive the above construction contract. Thus, the above construction site is not the contract.