A. The lower court’s sentence (one year of imprisonment without prison labor, one year of suspended execution, and 80 hours of community service order) against Defendant A is too unhued and unreasonable.

B. In light of all the circumstances with regard to Defendant B, although the Defendant could have been aware of the necessity for replacement and repair of the instant elevator, he did not take necessary measures such as asking the elevator manager for the meaning of the grade B (도요) and follow-up measures on the control team, etc. of the instant elevator, and thus, it is recognized that the Defendant violated the Defendant’s duty of care. However, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the crime of occupational negligence, thereby making it not guilty.

2. Determination

A. Defendant A, as an apartment security guard, was an apartment security guard, and the victim died because the apartment elevator did not take proper measures even after being aware of the breakdown, and the degree of negligence or damage was severe, but the defendant knew of the breakdown at the time and reported it to the relevant elevator controlled entity. The accident in this case occurred before the above controlled entity's employees arrive at the site, and the defendant did not take measures, such as taking measures for name as apartment security guards, suspending the use of the elevator before the error in the situation. However, although there was negligence that the defendant did not receive proper instructions from the managing entity of the elevator, this is not the reason why the defendant did not take proper measures, it is divided into one's own mistake and contradictory to the defendant, and there was no history of punishment for 50 years after 1959, and considering all other factors of sentencing, such as the defendant's character, character, age, age, etc., the prosecutor's assertion in this part of this case is without merit.

(b).