A. As to the violation of the Occupational Safety and Health Act against the Defendants (the Defendants), Article 29(3) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act does not apply to the victim as an individual business operator, and the victim G is merely a contractor and does not constitute a “worker employed by the contractor.” As such, Article 29(3) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act does not apply to the victim, and Article 29(3) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act does not apply to the victim, and Article 29(2) of the same Act with the victim merely limited to the assistant work outside the elevator in which the instant accident occurred

B. As to the misunderstanding of facts against the Defendants (Defendants) and the violation of the Occupational Safety and Health Act against the Defendants, Defendant A did not have a duty of care to take safety measures necessary for the prevention of accidents in relation to the contractor’s work, and there is no possibility of negligence or predictability in the instant accident, such as that Defendant A did not have a duty of care to take safety measures necessary for the prevention of accidents in relation to the contractor’s work.

C. The Defendants asserted that the sentence (Defendant A: a fine of KRW 5 million, Defendant B: a fine of KRW 3 million: a fine of KRW 3 million) declared by the court below against the Defendants is too unreasonable, and the prosecutor asserts that the above sentence is too uneasible and unfair.

2. Determination

A. 1) In light of the purpose of the Occupational Safety and Health Act (Article 1 and Articles 67 subparag. 1 and 23(1) of the same Act) to maintain and promote the safety and health of workers by establishing standards for occupational safety and health and by clarifying where the responsibility lies, and by creating a pleasant working environment, the same business owner is the same.