A. The court below which found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts, even though the defendant was injured by misunderstanding of facts due to his own negligence.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (2 million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The gist of the Defendant’s assertion of fact is that: (a) the Defendant confirmed that there was no person when entering the construction site; (b) the Defendant removed the pents with large sounds when removing the pents; and (c) there was a great sound to remove the pents pents; and (d) there was a situation where anyone who was at the construction site could have known that he would be engaged in removing the pents; and (b) the Defendant was not at fault.

In regard to this, the court below found that the Defendant failed to take such measures despite the intention of care to take measures such as installing safety facilities in the vicinity at the time of removing the iron gate of the same size as the facts charged, or evacuation of all surrounding people in advance, and that the Defendant sent a warning by means of sounding as the Defendant’s assertion, and that the Defendant gave a warning by means of spreading the pents.

It is difficult to see

The decision was determined.

In full view of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below, the above judgment of the court below is justified.

In addition, the victim does not leave any simple person at the site at the court below's trial.

I did not think that it will take place at once.

I do not see why we do not do so at any site once more than one removal when removing pents at any site.

The Defendant stated that the Defendant was also subject to an investigation by the police and went beyond the construction site to the inside and outside of the construction site;

The lower is that there is no person outside the construction site.