A. In light of the following: (a) there is no evidence consistent with the Defendant’s assertion that the victim left the asbestos dismantler on the date of the occurrence of the accident; (b) the Defendant did not make any such assertion in the first investigative agency; and even according to the Defendant’s statement, even if the accident occurred, the removal work began two days prior to the occurrence of the accident; and the Defendant appears to have taken part in the work without taking particular safety measures or education, according to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, this part of the facts charged is sufficiently convicted according to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor.

Nevertheless, the lower court acquitted the Defendant on the charge of mistake of facts.

(2) In relation to Defendant B, there is no evidence that the Defendant ordered the head of the site office to carry out the construction work on the date of the occurrence of the accident, and the removal work began two days prior to the occurrence of the accident, and the Defendant appears to have worked on A or the victim without any particular safety measures or education, the charges on this part of the charges are found guilty according to the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor.

Nevertheless, the lower court acquitted the Defendant on the charge of mistake of facts.

B. The lower court’s sentence (one month of imprisonment and one year of suspended execution) is too uneasible and unfair.

2. Determination

A. (1) As to the assertion of mistake of facts, the burden of proving the facts charged in a criminal trial is to be borne by the prosecutor, and the conviction is to be based on evidence with probative value sufficient for the judge to have a reasonable doubt that the facts charged are true, so that such evidence may not be proven.