A. In fact-finding (Defendant A) Co-defendant B failed to faithfully perform the duty of guidance and safety education, and even though the victim was aware of the risk of the characteristics of the construction site in advance, he did not exercise due care corresponding thereto, the court below did not grasp the rate of fault of the Defendants and did not clearly state the degree of injury of the victim, which affected the conclusion of the judgment on Defendant A by misunderstanding the facts.

B. Each sentence of unfair sentencing sentenced by the court below to the defendants (the defendants) (the two years of imprisonment without prison labor for each of 8 months and the suspension of execution) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to Defendant A’s assertion of mistake of facts, the co-principal is established when there is a communication among the doctors regardless of the intentional crime or negligence. If two or more persons commit a crime by committing a negligence under the mutual agreement, the co-principal is established (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 94Do660, May 24, 1994). Thus, the Defendants and co-defendants of the lower court cannot be held liable for joint liability for the injury suffered by the victim due to the instant accident, unless there are special circumstances, such as there is no personal negligence or negligence, even if there is no causation with the result of the instant accident, and there is no causation. 2) The lower court and the first instance court are acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted by the court below and the first instance court, namely, ① Defendant C is the representative director of the FF corporation, who was awarded a contract for extending E warehouse factory construction (AAdong) from the owner E company to the owner, and the Co-defendant B is the owner of the above E-F corporation’s factory warehouse construction work of the 30 roof warehouse.