A. In relation to the instant construction project, the Defendant did not neglect due care and supervision in order to prevent an employee C’s breach of duty to take risk prevention measures under the Occupational Safety and Health Act.

B. The sentence imposed by the court below is too heavy.

2. Determination

A. 1) Determination of erroneous determination as to the application of joint penal provisions under the Industrial Safety and Health Act ought to be made by comprehensively taking into account all the circumstances related to the relevant violation, namely, the legislative purport of the relevant Act, the degree of infringement of legal interests anticipated to be a violation of penal provisions, the purport of preparing joint penal provisions as to the relevant violation, as well as the specific form of the relevant violation and the degree of damage or result therefrom, the business size of the corporation, the possibility of supervision or specific direction of the offender, and the measures actually taken by the corporation to prevent the violation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Do7834, Sept. 9, 2010). 2) The evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court and the evidence adopted and examined by the trial court, and the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence, it is reasonable to view that the Defendant did not exercise due care and supervision to prevent the act of violation of the duty to take risk prevention measures by employees C.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and it cannot be said that there was an error that affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the facts, and if the waste pipe construction due to the removal of raw milk pipeline, the cleaning of pipes containing raw milk (hereinafter “the instant work”).

B. At this time, oil pipelines should be opened in the process, explosion shall be explosiond by mixing them with inflammable gas generated in residual oil products.