A. In light of the fact that Defendant C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant C”) was awarded a contract for the freezing facility works of this case from Defendant C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “G”), the Defendant, as the representative director of Defendant C, was in charge of the matters concerning the freezing facility works of this case, and on the day of the accident, K affiliated with Defendant C first became in charge of the matters concerning the freezing facility works of this case, and on the day of the accident, K came into contact with the victims of the L Co., Ltd. who subcontracted the pipe part, and conducted the pipe part, and K did not remove the pipeline gas in front of the pipeline at the time of the air pipeline test, which was conducted after the air pipeline work, as a person under the direction and supervision of the Defendant, and after the air pipeline work, the Defendant was a business owner with respect to the victims, and thus, the Defendant breached the Occupational Safety and Health Act, and thus, the Defendant committed the crime of this case.

Although the court below found the defendant not guilty, the court below erred by misunderstanding the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles on the duty of safety measures between the business owner and the business owner under the Occupational Safety and Health Act.

B. In light of the fact that Defendant CK is an employee of Defendant C, K directly directed and supervised victims on the date of the accident, and the water level (e.g., liquiding) which caused the instant accident due to Defendant C’s violation of the Rules on Industrial Safety Standards, etc., Defendant C neglected the duty of care to anticipate the instant accident’s safety measures violation at the time of the occurrence of the instant accident, or thoroughly exercise supervision and supervision to prevent the accident, and thus, Defendant C neglected such duty.