1. As to the grounds for appeal by Defendants D, E, and F, the appellate court is ex post facto review of the judgment of the appellate court, the matters not subject to the judgment of the appellate court are not subject to the scope of the review of the appeal, and thus, it cannot be the grounds for appeal for reasons other than those not alleged in the appellate court as the grounds for appeal or subject to the judgment of the appellate court ex officio (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Do2104, Jun. 30, 2006). The argument that there is an error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the relation with persons and the exclusion of responsibility in the judgment of the appellate court is erroneous, since Defendant D, E, and F are asserted for the grounds for appeal, or that the court below did not consider them as subject to the judgment of the appellate court ex officio, and therefore, it cannot

2. On the grounds for appeal by Defendant G and I Co., Ltd., the lower court, on the grounds stated in its reasoning, found Defendant G and I Co., Ltd. guilty of the violation of fugitives prevention measures and the violation of the duty to install warning equipment and devices at indoor workplaces among the charges of violation of the Industrial Safety and Health Act against Defendant G and I Co., Ltd., and concluded that the violation of the duty to assign a fire supervisor

Examining the provisions of relevant Acts and subordinate statutes and the evidence duly adopted and examined by the first instance court and the lower court, the lower court’s determination as to the violation of the duty to prevent scattering and the violation of the duty to assign fire monitors is justifiable.

There is no error of exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules, or of misapprehending the legal principles on the principle of punishment of crime.

The lower court determined that the ship under construction of this case constituted an indoor workplace. However, according to the relevant legal doctrine and the evidence duly adopted and examined by the first instance court, the violation of the duty to prevent scattering against Defendant G and I Co., Ltd.