A. Fact-misunderstanding and legal principles: (a) Defendant A was merely an employee who conducts estimated work only; (b) did not have a manager responsible for ordering the victim’s workers, etc. to pack and transport the articles; (c) there was no evidence to support that the victim felled; (d) the victim and B provided a signal for the operation of the transportation vehicle by exchanging signals over ten times; and (c) the victim and B provided a signal for the operation of the transportation vehicle; (d) it is practically difficult or more dangerous to wear a sublease at the time of carrying these articles, and thus, there was a violation of the duty to wear a safety belt in this case.

Since it is difficult to see that the work related to this article is not the work of operating the original machinery, but only B, the operator of a bridge vehicle, which is the operator of the transport vehicle, and thus, Defendant C has the duty to take safety measures to the same extent as the work of dealing with the equipment, such as machinery, under the Industrial Safety and Health Act.

In light of the fact that it is difficult to see the cause of the instant accident, and the cause of the instant accident is only a mistake in B, which operates the lifts transport equipment, or the lives between other causes and the fall accident of the victim, it is difficult to deem the Defendants to have caused the death of the victim by failing to fulfill their duty of care in the course of performing their duties or by failing to take safety measures under the Industrial Safety and Health Act.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendants guilty of each charges is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence of the lower court against the illegal Defendants (2 years of suspended execution in June of the imprisonment without prison labor, 2 years of suspended execution in June of the imprisonment without prison labor, and 2 years of suspended execution in June) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Article 23 (Safety Measures) (1) of the Industrial Safety and Health Act as to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles.