Of them, the part on Defendant B shall be reversed.

Defendant

B shall be punished by imprisonment without prison labor for one year.

Defendant

A, D, E,.

A. Defendant A and D1) misunderstanding of facts cannot be readily concluded that Defendant D cut down the vertical part of the “A” engine displacement of Defendant D’s “A” boiler of this case. 2) The lower court’s sentence of unfair sentencing (Defendant A: 2 years of imprisonment, Defendant D’s imprisonment without prison labor for 2 years, and Defendant D’s imprisonment without prison labor for 2 years) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B, G1) misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles, Defendant B, and G fulfilled the duty of inspection as prescribed by the Act and subordinate statutes through M. Considering the principle of trust, it is difficult to view that Defendant B and G violated the duty of care. In addition, Defendant B and G, a non-professional witness, bears the duty of gas boiler inspection exceeding the draft physical examination, and cannot expect the discovery of defects, etc. in the installation of the boiler of this case. 2) The lower court’s sentence of unfair sentencing (Defendant B: Defendant B: imprisonment without prison labor for 1 year and 6 months, Defendant G: one year, and two years of suspended execution) is too unreasonable.

C. While it is difficult to readily conclude that Defendant E-1 misjudgments or misapprehension of legal principles cut the vertical part of Defendant D’s “1” exhauster part of the boiler in the instant boiler, Defendant E was likely to cut exhauster by a third party in the process of extension and alteration after completion inspection.

On the other hand, Defendant E merely conducted a draft inspection on the engine air secrets of the boiler at the time of completion inspection. However, the original purpose of the heat-resistant container is only to maintain the exhaust air secrets, and it does not aim at preventing the escape from the exhaust air beyond it.

더욱이 이 사건 보일러의 배기통 이탈은 흡기관과 배기관 사이에 생긴 벌집으로 인한 불완전연소 및 푹발점화에 따른 진동에서 기인하였는바, 이 사건 보일러에 내열실리콘 등을 통한 기밀유지가 잘 되었더라도 이 사건 사고를 막을 수 있었다고 보기는 어렵다.

Furthermore, Defendant E’s omission of the entry of the construction sign at the time of completion inspection.