A. The Defendant consistently recognized the victim’s worker nature at an investigative agency, and stated himself/herself as an employer. The Defendant also believed the background behind the reversal of the above statement, and the Defendant exercised his/her right to direction and supervise workers by comprehensively entrusting or delegating the employment, direction and supervision of workers.

In addition, even according to the record of recording submitted by the wife of the victim, the victim also received a daily allowance from the defendant, and the defendant committed a specific work order, so it cannot be deemed that the defendant entered into a contract with the victim, and substantial employment relationship between the defendant and the victim is established.

B. Even if there is no substantial employment relationship between the Defendant and the victim, the Defendant cannot avoid liability under Article 29(1)2 of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry as a contracting business owner under Article 29(3) of the same Act.

2. Determination on the grounds for appeal

A. 1) The summary of the primary facts charged is that the Defendant is a personal business owner who runs a tent production and installation business in the name of "C" from Ulsan-gu, Ulsan-gu, and is a person in charge of safety and health of his employees. The Defendant is a person in charge of the safety and health of his employees. The Defendant is a construction work to remove and replace a 17 million won of the construction cost from the Eulsan Center in Ulsan-gu, Ulsan-gu, Seoul-do (hereinafter "the instant construction work").

(1) On January 24, 2018, from January 24, 2018 to January 31, 2018, the Defendant ordered the construction period to perform construction works. On January 30, 2018, the Defendant ordered the Victim F (4 employees, including B, etc., to remove a tent with a height of 8.3m high.

As above, the business owner is at the risk of falling down by workers, and at least two meters in height.