A. The court below found Defendant C, the representative director of Defendant C (hereinafter “Defendant C”) on the ground of mistake of facts, J, B, and H statements, and found Defendant C not guilty. However, prior to K’s instant accident, if damage to the contact labelling, B, without a construction operator’s license, operated a searcher and directly melting the victim G, and made it clear that Defendant B would have been aware of the above facts by visiting the work site. At the time of the instant accident, Defendant A, at the time of the instant accident, was aware that the victim G was not equipped with stability equipment, or that Defendant B did not receive a construction operator’s construction operator’s license at the site of the work site of the company, and even prior to the instant accident, he could be found to have been negligent in aiding and abetting the victim’s death, and even if the victim B did not have any construction operator’s construction operator’s construction operator’s construction operator’s construction operator’s construction operator’s construction operator’s construction work at the scene of the accident, he could be found to have neglected the victim’s work.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is erroneous.

B. The lower court’s sentence (one million won by fine) against Defendant A on the grounds that the sentence of an unreasonable sentencing is too uneasible and unfair.

2. Determination

A. Article 23(3) of the Industrial Safety and Health Act provides that a business owner shall take necessary measures to prevent risks in the course of performing work, such as a place where the worker might fall at work, etc., and where the risk is anticipated to occur.