1. As to the grounds for appeal by Defendant A and B, the lower court, based on the adopted evidence, designed three of the 55-meter sections of theO to use concrete mixed with dubs and dubs, and designed to install the current concrete block on the upper steel site before he/she saw the 55-meter section above. However, since it is impossible to install dubs due to the removal in the above construction site, the lower court’s construction method was changed by removing soil from the above dubs of the 20th section after he/she laid down the dubs of the 5th section, and then he/she did not complete construction work on the 2nd section after he/she consulted with the Defendant on the 5th section of the 5th section, and he/she did not complete construction work on the 2nd section of the 5th section, and he/she did not complete construction work on the 2nd section of the 2nd section, and he/she did not perform construction work on the 2nd section of the 2nd section.