2. The judgment of Defendant A and Defendant B’s agent appears to have recognized and reflected the instant crime; there is no criminal record exceeding the fine imposed on Defendant A; the Defendants agreed with the bereaved family members of the victim by endeavoring to recover damage; and Defendant A’s transition fees, including the wife of the victim, wanted the Defendant A’s preference.

However, in light of the legislative intent of the Industrial Safety and Health Act, which imposes various safety measures on the business owner, etc. to maintain the safety and health of workers by preventing the entry of persons other than the relevant workers by means of setting up an industrial accident, the crime of this case is not deemed to have been committed in bad quality, and thus, the victim, not the relevant workers, has been neglected to repair the lelett (parometric). Accordingly, there is a high possibility of criticism that serious result in the victim’s death. Defendant A has the history of being punished for the same kind of crime around 2016, and there is a need for punishment corresponding thereto in light of the above legislative intent of the Industrial Safety and Health Act, which imposes various safety measures on the business owner, etc. in order to maintain the safety and health of workers by preventing industrial accidents. In addition, comprehensively taking account of all the sentencing conditions of this case, such as Defendant A’s age, character and behavior, environment, motive, means and consequence of the Defendants’ crime, and the circumstances after the crime, the lower court’

3. In conclusion, the Defendants’ appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground that it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

However, the rules on criminal procedure.