The sentence of the lower court (a fine of three million won) is too unhued and unreasonable.

Judgment

The defendant, as an on-site agent of a place of work, caused the result of the victim's death due to a negligence in violation of the duty of safety distance maintenance, which is the crime of this case, and the nature of the crime of this case is heavy.

However, in full view of the following factors: (a) the Defendant recognized his mistake and reflects the depth of the Defendant; (b) the Defendant was a first offender who had no previous conviction; (c) the Defendant resulted in the instant accident only one month after temporary employment at the university; and (d) the victim’s bereaved family members do not want punishment against the Defendant; and (c) other factors of sentencing as indicated in the pleadings, such as the circumstances after the instant crime, the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, and environment, are considered as favorable factors of sentencing; and (d) it is not recognized that the lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable, and thus, the Prosecutor’s assertion

Therefore, the prosecutor's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.

(However, the Defendant, as an on-site agent, is a “actor,” not a “business owner,” and thus, ex officio pursuant to Article 25(1) of the Regulations on Criminal Procedure, and is corrected to refer to Supreme Court Decision 2008Do7834 Decided September 9, 2010 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Do7834, Sept. 9, 2010).