The part of the judgment of the court below against the defendant is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

2. Defendant 2

The part of the judgment of the court below against the defendant is reversed.

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

3. Defendant 3

The part of the judgment of the court below against the defendant is reversed.

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

4. Defendant 4

The part of the judgment of the court below against the defendant is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by imprisonment without prison labor for eight months.

5. Defendant 5

All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

6. Defendants 6 and 8

All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

7. Defendant 7 corporation

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

A. Defendants (excluding Defendant 7 Co., Ltd.)

1) Defendant 5 and 6’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles

The Defendants trusted that Defendant 7 Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant 7 Co., Ltd.”) (hereinafter “Defendant 7 Co., Ltd.”) (hereinafter “Defendant 7 Co., Ltd.”) had a duty of care to check whether flicks and polyethylene products remain inside the shooting day (Slurge, 5 meters in diameter storage tank) and clean-up work. In addition, the Defendants did not have a duty of care to predict the risk of the occurrence of accidents by reliance on the result of measurement of inflammable gas conducted by Defendant 7 Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant 7 Co., Ltd.”) before work, and there was no expectation that the Defendants, a safety manager, could stop work on the site and cleaning of the business, solely on the ground that flurge was removed in the circumstances where Defendant 7’s employees specifically instructed work.

2) Unreasonable sentencing

The following punishments against the Defendants of the lower court are too unreasonable.

(1) Defendants 1 (Defendant 1 of the judgment of the Supreme Court) and 5: Three years of a suspended sentence of imprisonment for each year and six months.

② Defendants 2, 3 (Non-Indicted Party in the Judgment of the Supreme Court), and 4: Three years of suspended execution for each of two years of imprisonment without prison labor.

③ Defendant 6: Fines 10 million won

(4) Defendant 8: Fines of 30 million won

(b) Prosecutors;

1) misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles

A) On March 14, 2013, Defendant 1 and Defendant 7’s non-guilty part of the violation of the Occupational Safety and Health Act relating to explosion accident (Defendant 1’s non-guilty part)

As seen in the instant case, it is unreasonable that a contractor and a subcontractor are liable to take safety measures for their employees, respectively, when a contractor directly engages in work while monitoring and supervising the progress of work, and that a contractor does not take safety measures under Articles 67 subparag. 1 and 23(1) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act against its employees on the ground that the contractor’s employees are not directly engaged in work at the work site.

B) Parts of the cause of explosion

The explosion accident of this case is a misunderstanding of the facts that the lusent dust, etc. was adhered to the lusent gas or dust remaining in the inner space and caused a heavy pressure, and as a result, it appears that a sudden explosion was caused by filling the lusent dust on the lower part and on the wall, and caused a sudden explosion. As such, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts except that the lusent dust, etc. was stuck to the lusent gas and remaining dust among the grounds for explosion in the facts charged.

2) Unreasonable sentencing

Each of the above punishments against Defendant 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 of the lower court is unfair as it is too unhued.

2. Determination

A. Judgment on the misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles by Defendant 5 and 6

The Defendants asserted the same purport in the lower court. The lower court determined as follows: ① the Defendants were the field manager and safety manager of Defendant 8 Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant 8”) who directly employed daily workers and contracted for work; ② there is no evidence to deem that the Defendants entirely entrusted safety matters within the workplace to Defendant 7, the contractor, after being awarded a contract for the last installation work at Defendant 8; ③ on the day of the explosion accident in this case, it was observed that it was impossible to remove inflammable materials from the date of the explosion in this case to the date of the melting work; ④ it cannot be deemed that the duty to follow the prime contractor’s direction takes priority over the duty to protect safety of employees under his command; ⑤ The Defendants’ career and experience in the field, etc. did not have any duty to ensure that the Defendants could have been found to have been negligent in performing safety measures before the explosion in this case, and that there was no adequate risk in performing the act of explosion in the region.

Examining the judgment of the court below closely with the records of this case, the judgment of the court below is just and there is no error of law by misunderstanding facts or by misunderstanding legal principles, and the defendants' above assertion is without merit

B. Judgment on the prosecutor's misconception of facts or misapprehension of legal principles

1) On March 14, 2013, the part concerning Defendant 1 and Defendant 7’s non-guilty of violation of the Occupational Safety and Health Act relating to explosion accident (Defendant 1’s non-guilty of grounds)

As stated in its reasoning, the lower court is established when a business owner instructs his employees to take safety-risk measures under Articles 67 subparag. 1 and 23(1) of the Industrial Safety and Health Act without taking safety measures as prescribed by the rules on the industrial safety standards at the place of business operated by him/her, or neglecting such measures despite being aware of the fact that the above work is being carried out without taking safety measures. Thus, if the business owner does not direct the employees under his/her command to take safety-risk measures, the business owner does not allow the employees under his/her command to take such measures, but it merely requires the employees under his/her command to monitor and supervise the above work carried out by the subcontractor after giving the above contract, the business owner cannot be deemed to have the duty to take safety measures under Article 67 subparag. 1 and subparag. 23(1) of the same Act. On the premise that the record reveals that the employees of Defendant 7, including Defendant 3, etc., were not guilty of the above workers under his/her command on the date of the accident.

Examining the judgment of the court below closely with the records of this case, the judgment of the court below is just and there is no error of law by misunderstanding facts or by misunderstanding the legal principles, and the prosecutor's above assertion

2) Parts of the cause of explosion

The lower court, as indicated in its reasoning, found that, from the beginning due to the explosion of this case, it is difficult to see that inflammable gas has broken out within the shooting days from the beginning, and it was excluded from the charge that folded excreta, etc., among the charges in relation to the first launching point, have been stuck to the remaining inflammable gas and the dust in the process of suspended oil. Moreover, the lower court found that the springed dust, etc., generated from melting operations, was stuck to the plugg, etc. inside the shooting days, causing a heavy pressure, and that a sudden explosion has occurred as pluggs on the lower portion and on the wall, which were caused by a sudden explosion.

Examining the judgment of the court below closely with the records of this case, the judgment of the court below is just and there is no error of law by misunderstanding facts or by misunderstanding the legal principles, and the prosecutor's above assertion

C. Determination on the assertion of unfair sentencing on Defendants (excluding Defendants 7 and the Prosecutor’s Defendant 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5

(i) a common reason for sentencing (the gravity of a case);

After the explosion accident of this case, Defendant 7 paid 39 million won to the bereaved family members of the victims who died by Defendant 7, and Defendant 8 paid 27.8 million won to most victims who suffered the injury as 99 million won for each treatment fee and accident compensation, and Defendant 7’s safety environment planning team was newly established and increased the number of employees.

However, due to the explosion of this case, six workers were killed, 10 persons were killed, and 10 persons were killed, and 3 of them were suffering from severe images, etc. among the accidents that occurred in the domestic petroleum chemical complex for the last ten years. Accordingly, the victims and their bereaved family members cannot completely recover from the fact that monetary compensation was made.

The explosion accident of this case cannot be seen as a typical human resource (human resource) with safety infinites performed simultaneously with fire work and raining work without completely removing flammables attached to the inner wall from water cleaning, etc.

Moreover, there is no room for the defense of the Defendants who did not prevent the instant case at the same time, even if there was a fire that occurred due to the explosion of Blender (Blender, polyethylene final product storage tank) around June 2012 in Defendant 7’s factory, and that there was no defense for any reason.

2) Individual grounds for sentencing

A) Defendant 1

The fact that the defendant is a primary offender and has recognized his mistake, and that the defendant, as the head of the factory of the defendant 7's ○○ Factory, delegated a substantial portion of the field management work to the person in charge of the work, appears to be the negligence of the field management personnel, and that the primary responsibility of the explosion accident of this case is the most reliable method that could prevent the explosion of this case, is to remove a plug by cleaning internal water, and it seems that the working division did not recommend the necessity of such measures to the defendant in the working division.

However, the Defendant, after being appointed as the factory site, knew of the fact that a large quantity of plugs are attached to the inner wall in the process of handling a storm accident and establishing ex post facto measures, and in such a situation, the risk of explosion accidents would have increased significantly through long experience and experience. Therefore, even if the working division did not recommend internal water cleaning work, even if the Defendant did not suggest the internal water cleaning work as a shooting day, it should have taken such measures and directed it. Rather, it is necessary to punish the Defendant with heavy punishment in that it provided a structural cause that makes it impossible to properly monitor and supervise the safety of the company by force while pursuing the acquisition of profit and safety of the company.

In addition, considering the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, occupation and environment, motive and background leading to the instant crime, circumstances after the instant crime, etc. as well as the sentencing conditions indicated in the instant records and arguments, the lower court’s punishment is deemed unreasonable, and thus, the prosecutor’s above assertion is reasonable and without merit.

B) Defendant 2

The fact that the defendant was the first offender and recognized his mistake, and that the explosion cause of this case is not only the defendant's wrong but also the lack of human resources due to the company culture and restructuring pursuing only profit acquisition and efficiency, and that there is no safety awareness due to the lack of safety awareness system.

However, the Defendant is a working-level officer in charge of the instant explosive accident, who permitted the instant explosive accident, to grasp the risk factors at the work site on a primary basis, and is responsible for removing them. However, it cannot be directly responsible for the Defendant’s issuance of the work permit to be simultaneously permitted at the same time without verifying the work site (Article 5, No. 2075, No. 5, Evidence No. 2013, No. 954, No. 2075, No. 5, No. 2075, No. 2011,

The Defendant asserts that the work permit (2013rd group 954 evidence No. 52076 of the record of evidence No. 52076 of the work permit) stating that “the same vertical work as the contact work is prohibited,” does not constitute an ex post facto manipulation. However, it is highly probable that the work permit ② would have been ex post facto manipulation, and even if not, even if not, the Defendant did not do so, the investigation agency and the court of the court below consistently held that Defendant 8, a subcontractor, did not act as a subcontractor with the prohibition of directization of the work permit ② and that “the explosion accident of this case occurred by the Defendant Company 8, a subcontractor, was committed,” which goes beyond the responsibility of the accident, such as asserting that “the Defendant was responsible for the accident of this case.” It is necessary to punish the Defendant with severe punishment corresponding to the fault.

In addition, considering the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, occupation and environment, motive and background leading to the instant crime, circumstances after the instant crime, etc. as well as the sentencing conditions indicated in the instant records and arguments, the lower court’s punishment is deemed unreasonable, and thus, the prosecutor’s above assertion is reasonable and without merit.

C) Defendant 3

The fact that the defendant's mistake is recognized, and as in the case of the defendant 2, that the explosion of this case occurred in the industrial field's absence of safety awareness, etc. is favorable.

However, the defendant, as an on-site supervisor, was directly checked that a 10 kilograms of 10 kilograms of spug through a valve as a day off-site supervisor, but the risk was not reduced, and rather the floor was dissipated, the defendant is responsible for the explosion accident of this case by providing a critical cause for the lower valve to accumulate a plug inside the lock as a lock, and the defendant also has weak degree of responsibility for the explosion of this case. However, at one time, the defendant 2's assertion that there was an attitude to go off the responsibility of this case to the lower company, and there is a serious penalty corresponding to his responsibility and mistake.

In addition, considering the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, occupation and environment, motive and background leading to the instant crime, circumstances after the instant crime, etc. as well as the sentencing conditions indicated in the instant records and arguments, the lower court’s punishment is deemed unreasonable, and thus, the prosecutor’s above assertion is reasonable and without merit.

D) Defendant 4

The overall cause of the instant case and the negligence of the Defendant are relatively less favorable than Defendant 2 and Defendant 3.

However, when the Defendant did not properly grasp the risk of the work as a field supervisor, the Defendant requested the production team to permit the installation work of the manle on the day of the explosion accident in this case, and did not leave the site and do not actually supervise the work at the time when the risk of the accident is the highest, and as in the same manner as Defendant 3, it is necessary to severely punish the Defendant, which corresponds to the mistake and the responsibility.

In addition, considering the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, occupation and environment, motive and background leading to the instant crime, circumstances after the instant crime, etc. as well as the sentencing conditions indicated in the instant records and arguments, the lower court’s punishment is deemed unreasonable, and thus, the prosecutor’s above assertion is reasonable and without merit.

E) Defendant 5 and 6

The defendants, as the field manager and the safety manager of the defendant 8 company, observed that the fracks inside the shooting day during the contact work, he asked the defendant 7 company, which is the original contractor, to take appropriate measures or proceed with the work in spite of having to stop the work taking into consideration the safety of the workers as the top priority. In particular, the defendant 5 retired from the work while the work is disadvantageous.

On the other hand, at the time of the explosion of this case, it is not practically easy for Defendant 7 to give opinions different from the direction of Defendant 7, the prime contractor, as a subcontractor, to which Defendant 7 was under management and supervision at the time of the explosion of this case, and it seems that the Defendants did not pay attention to the work because they did not go beyond the gas measurement result from Defendant 7’s employees, and Defendant 5 is the primary offender.

In addition, considering the Defendants’ age, character and conduct, occupation and environment, motive and background leading to the instant crime, and the circumstances after the instant crime, etc., the lower court’s punishment against Defendant 5 is deemed to be too heavy or unreasonable, and it is not deemed that the lower court’s punishment against Defendant 6 is too unreasonable because it is too unreasonable. Thus, the Defendants and the Prosecutor’s aforementioned assertion are without merit.

F) Defendant 8

As seen earlier, Defendant 5, an employee of the Defendant, caused an accident, such as death of 6 workers employed by the Defendant, by negligence as seen earlier in relation to the explosion of this case, using an apparatus that did not obtain safety certification without implementing risk prevention measures over 53 cases after special supervision over the accident, and taking account of the motive and circumstance leading to the crime of this case and the circumstances after the crime, etc., the lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable, and thus, the Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, since the part of the judgment of the court below as to Defendant 1, 2, 3, and 4 is well-grounded in both the appeal of unfair sentencing by the prosecutor, it shall be reversed under Article 364(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and it shall be decided again through the pleading as follows (this appeal by the above defendants shall be dismissed under Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, but since the prosecutor's appeal is accepted, as long as the part of the judgment below against the above defendants is reversed under Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, the appeal by the above defendants 5, 6, and 8, and the appeal by the prosecutor against the defendant 5, 5, 8, and the prosecutor against the defendant 5, and 7, it shall not be dismissed separately

Defendant 1: Articles 268 and 30 of the Criminal Act; Articles 268 and 30 of the Criminal Act; Articles 71, 67 subparag. 1, and 23(1) and (3) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act; Articles 71, 67 subparag. 1, and 24(1) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act; Articles 71, 67 subparag. 1, and 24(1) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act; Articles 71, 67-2 subparag. 1, and 34-4(1)1 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act (the use of an apparatus without safety certification) of the same Act;

Defendant 2, 3, and 4: Articles 268 and 30 of the Criminal Act (the point of occupational negligence or death), Articles 268 and 30 of the Criminal Act (the point of injury by occupational negligence or injury)

1. Commercial competition;

Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Code (Mutually, Crimes of Death by Occupational Negligence and Injury by Occupational Negligence)

1. Selection of punishment;

Defendant 1: Imprisonment without prison labor for the crime of occupational death and death, and imprisonment for the crime of violation of the Occupational Safety and Health Act, respectively.

Defendant 2, 3, and 4: Selection of imprisonment without prison labor

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes (Defendant 1);

Article 37 (former part), Article 38 (1) 2 and (2), and Article 50 of the Criminal Act

Judges on container (Presiding Judge)