A and B shall be punished by imprisonment without prison labor for six months, and by imprisonment for six months, respectively.

except that from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Defendant

C is a business owner who runs the transportation business under the trade name of "G" from the Sig-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government F, and Defendant A is a management director of the above "G", and Defendant B is an operator of the high-priced bridge vehicle belonging to "I" located in Sig-gu, Young-gu.

1. At around 11:05 on December 26, 2013, Defendant A: (a) had G employee K carry an article into and under the bottom of a premium transport box for the purpose of transport of mosing the article through a small door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door, and Defendant B operated mos door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door on the first floor, and the victim’s cell door up from 16th to 16th floor.

At the same time, the work site was a place that is likely to fall at least 2 meters in height, and the transport equipment for the removal of animals was working using the transport equipment, so the defendant A has a duty of care to pay safety belts to the victim and wear it. The defendant A has a duty of care to ensure that the victim does not board the transport equipment for the removal of animals, to ensure that the victim does not board the transport equipment, to ensure that the defendant B, who is an operator of an elevated bridge vehicle, is a driver of the transport equipment for the removal of animals, according to a certain signal method at the time of operating the transport equipment for the removal of animals, and to ensure that the defendant B had a duty of care to operate the transport equipment for the transportation of animals safely in accordance with the signal method, after checking whether the victim was not aboard the transport equipment for the removal of animals.

Nevertheless, the Defendants neglected to perform their duties as they were, and they did not discover the victims who were loaded with erogical transport equipment and erogical erogical erogical 1603 smalls of 1603, on the floor below about 40 meters by negligence of manipulating the transport equipment for erogical eroging transport equipment to the following.