가. 피고인 A 1) 법리 오해 피고인 A는 2015. 8. 중순경 ㈜E( 구 주식회사 C) 의 경영권을 ㈜Q에 양도 하여 이 사건 사고 당시에는 명목상 대표이사로 등기되어 있었을 뿐 실질적으로 ㈜E 의 경영권을 행사하거나 업무를 집행하지 않았는바, 산업안전 보건법상 기계, 기구, 그 밖의 설비에 의한 위험을 예방하기 위하여 필요한 조치를 취할 의무를 부담하는 ‘ 사업주 ’에 해당하지 아니한다.

Furthermore, at the time of the instant accident, Defendant A had the substantial management right of the KOE at the time of the instant accident

In addition, the head of the headquarters located in B and voice, who is the head of the production management department and the person in charge of safety management of the chemical factory, was in exclusive charge of the affairs related to the safety maintenance and safety education of the chemical machinery of the chemical factory. The defendant A does not bear specific and direct duty of care to devise safety-related measures for the chemical machinery of the chemical factory.

Nevertheless, the court below found Defendant guilty on the premise that the Defendant, as an employer under the Industrial Safety and Health Act, bears the duty of care to devise safety-related measures for the chemical machinery machinery. The court below erred by misapprehending legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2) In fact, the business related to the maintenance of machinery safety and safety education for the E-factory factories was conducted at the head office located in each factory and voice, and Defendant A did not have received a report on the defects of the compressing machine in which the instant accident occurred. Thus, Defendant A could not take measures, such as inspection and prohibition of use, etc.

Nevertheless, the court below found Defendant A guilty on the premise that Defendant A received a request for repair on the premise that Defendant A had a defect in the pressure exit machine from H, the head of the victim’s team, and thus, Defendant A was found guilty. The court below erred by misapprehending the facts, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

(ii)..