산업안전보건법위반등
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
1. In light of the nature of the instant work, the current status of safety control managers, the circumstances of the occurrence of accidents, etc., the Defendant constitutes an actor as prescribed by the Industrial Safety Management Act, and even if the Defendant, a representative director, has the duty of care to prevent safety accidents, the judgment of the court below that acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged of this case is erroneous in the misapprehension of
2. The judgment below held that D, a business owner, is a company operating a painting and waterproof construction, which entered into a contract for F apartment and cream repair and painting construction with F apartment, G, a field manager of safety management at the site of this case, is responsible for waterproof work at the site of this case, and G, a field manager at the site of this case, took charge of waterproof work at the site of this case, and conducted safety education such as wearing safety equipment at the site of this case. G, while the defendant did not directly go to the site of this case and received reports on the result of safety management inspection at each site from the I, etc. in the former site of this case, and D, a corporation, a business owner, was instructed to wear safety appearance at the site of this case due to inconvenience in the work of this case, and it is difficult to view that the victim did not wear safety appearance at the site of this case and did not directly direct employees at the site of this case and did not take necessary measures for preventing danger under Article 26(3) of the Industrial Safety and Health Act.