Of them, the part on Defendant A and Digital Construction Co., Ltd. shall be reversed.

Defendant

A, A and ad hoc Construction.

A. misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles (hereinafter “Defendant Digital Construction”), Defendant Digital Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Digital Construction Co., Ltd.”) appears to have conducted management and supervision by ascertaining the progress of construction work at the construction site of this case and consulting about complementary matters with the subcontractor, and Defendant A appears to have been directly engaged in the construction work at the construction site of this case. Defendant A was appointed as a person in general charge of construction at the construction site of Daejeon Metropolitan City, which was ordered by the Construction Management Headquarters around 2010 (hereinafter “K Construction”). Defendant A also approved the change of the construction method of this case after consultation with Defendant C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant C”); Defendant A’s employees (Z, AD, AB, AC, etc.) did not constitute a violation of the former Occupational Safety and Health Act under the premise that the construction work at the construction site of this case or at the construction site of this case was directly conducted by the subcontractor; Defendant Digital Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “former Industrial Safety and Health Act”). In light of the fact that construction at the construction site of falling under one’s or another industrial safety Act.

B. The respective types of punishment sentenced by the lower court to Defendant B and C (a fine of KRW 5 million) are too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The judgment of ex officio is ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal against Defendant A and Digital Construction by the ex officio judgment prosecutor.