Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles, which judged that Defendant B did not have a duty of specific and direct care, and that the above Defendant did not constitute an offender of violation of the Occupational Safety and Health Act.

2. In full view of the facts and circumstances stated by the court below and the following circumstances that can be recognized by the court below’s legal statement of witness M, namely, the authority of managing, maintaining, and installing the factory facilities of this case at the time of this case was actually granted to M, who is the head of the factory. However, if the expenses are not less than five million won, the representative director’s approval was obtained due to the expenditure. In full view of the fact that the head of the factory who is the person in charge of safety and health management under Article 9(3) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Industrial Safety and Health Act (wholly amended by Presidential Decree No. 30256, Dec. 24, 2019) was delegated the authority of the person in charge of safety and health management under Article 13(1) of the former Industrial Safety and Health Act (wholly amended by Act No. 16272, Jan. 15, 2019), the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone alone is insufficient to acknowledge that Defendant B falls under the duty of due care of safety and health of workers.

Therefore, prosecutor's assertion is not accepted.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

However, the judgment of the court below is just No. 7.2.