When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

B is an individual business owner who resides in the site of “Seoul Nam-gu C Officetel New Construction Works” and is performing the said new construction work, and the Defendant is an individual business owner who subcontracted the steel reinforced concrete construction work from B to the said construction site and is performing the said construction work.

Where the business owner wears safety belts to workers at a place at a height of at least two meters at the risk of falling, he/she shall install equipment, etc. to safely string out the subleases.

Nevertheless, at around 11:00 on April 15, 2017, the Defendant had workers D wear a safety belt at the above construction site and had workers D do work to install a lub Ri in order to create a lub at a 5-meter range from the ground to create a lub, but did not install a safety lub attachment that can be used by safely putting a sub-lease.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police against D;

1. Each statement of E and F;

1. Reporting of investigation results;

1. Application of the statutes governing a subcontract for construction works;

1. Article 67 of the relevant Act and Articles 67 subparagraph 1 and 23 (3) of the Industrial Safety and Health Act concerning facts constituting an offense;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that a worker was injured due to a violation of the defendant's duty to take safety measures on the grounds of sentencing, but the worker's negligence appears to coincide with some of the workers, and no public prosecution has been instituted separately on the job and negligence, the fact that the worker had not been tried for the same kind of offense and is in violation of the duty to take safety measures, the fact that the worker was absent once on the sentencing date, and other