A. Regarding the facts charged in the instant case by Defendants A, B and C, Defendants A, B, and C, the elevator operation work of the instant elevator is merely the business of the instant apartment security chain Co., Ltd., and not the business of the said Defendants, and in the instant case, the said Defendants could not have entirely predicted the occurrence of the instant fall accident and the death of the victim.

Therefore, although the above defendants cannot be established as occupational death crime, the court below found them guilty. In so doing, the court below erred by misunderstanding of facts.

B) In this case, Defendant D cannot be deemed to have been negligent on the part of the same business as indicated in the instant facts charged, and even if Defendant D was negligent on the part of his business, there is no proximate causal relation between such occupational negligence and the victim’s death. Therefore, Defendant D cannot be established, and the lower court found Defendant D guilty. In so determining, the lower court erred by misunderstanding of facts or misapprehending of legal principles. (2) In so determining, the lower court erred by misapprehending of facts or misapprehending of legal principles, each sentence (Defendant A, Company B: each fine of KRW 5 million, Defendant C: KRW 7 million, and Defendant D’s fine of KRW 4 million) that the lower court rendered against the Defendants is too unreasonable.

B. The above punishment sentenced by the prosecutor by the court below against the defendants is too unhued and unfair.

2. Determination

A. The above defendants in the judgment of the court below as to the misconception of facts as to the defendants A, B, and C had the same assertion as the grounds for appeal, and the court below rejected the above defendants' assertion and convicted the above defendants of the death by occupational negligence as to the above defendants in the "judgment on the defendant A, C, and their defense counsel" in the judgment.