1. As to the grounds of appeal as to the occupational injury resulting in death, the court below found the Defendant A and B’s failure to conduct washing work in light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the records, namely, ① the pressure valve in which the accident occurred was no problem on the test report, ② Qdo pressure valve in construction supervision was not found, ③ the responsibility for construction of the entire oxygen supply facilities, including the pressure valve, was in the F, and the responsibility for construction of the entire oxygen supply facilities was in the stock company. Moreover, it is difficult to deem that the cleaning work was not performed. ② The state and the appraisal report did not include the rapid manipulation of the valves due to the accident. ② The victims did not know that the victim was unable to know the rapid operation of the valves at the time of the accident. ③ In light of the fact that the victim I stated that the victim I stated that the valve was completely operated before 20 minutes of the accident, ④ the main matters directly prepared by the victims, the victim H and I’s failure to affirm the judgment of the court of first instance.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and the record, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on occupational negligence, proximate causal relation,

2. As to the ground of appeal on the violation of the Occupational Safety and Health Act, Articles 66-2 and 23(1) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act concerning a business owner’s violation of the same Act is stipulated by the rules concerning the work that pose a risk of safety under Article 23(1) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act at a