In light of the fact that the Defendants could work more safely through a similar vehicle entrance, etc., it is difficult to deem Defendant A not to be exempted from the installation of a work sign, and the Defendants were not guilty of the Defendants on the grounds that the victims neglected to wear a safety stand. The lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine or misapprehending the legal doctrine.

2. Determination

A. Article 23(1) of the Industrial Safety and Health Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Employment and Labor No. 182, Mar. 3, 2017; hereinafter “the Act”) provides that “a business owner shall take necessary measures to prevent any of the following hazards in running his/her business,” and Article 23(4) provides for “risk by machinery, apparatus, and other equipment.” Paragraph (4) of the same Article provides that matters concerning safety measures to be taken by a business owner under the above provision shall be prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Employment and Labor, and Article 32 (Payment, etc. of the Protection Gu) regarding safety mother and safety belt under Article 32 shall be paid to workers who perform any of the following work in excess of the number of employees who wear protective outfits in accordance with the following working conditions:

1. Work in which an object is removed, likely to fall, or to fall, by an employee: Safety caps;

2. Work conducted in a place at a risk of falling at least two meters in height and depth: When the relevant business owner engages in the work in a place where workers fall or are likely to fall down, or in a mechanical facility, equipment, ship block, etc., with respect to a safety belt and the emission plate prescribed in Article 42;