A. misunderstanding of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles, and Articles 66-2 and 23(1) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act are established when a business owner takes safety measures to protect his/her employees, and thus, the crime is established when a work is conducted without taking safety measures by the business owner. The defendant A failed to keep a smoke tag in the workplace. At the site of the accident in this case, G, who is the employee of the defendant, did not carry out sufficient preventive education, did not take sufficient preventive measures and did not take safety measures, and if a work is conducted without taking safety measures, a crime should be established. However, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendants, which found him/her not guilty, is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles on the crime of violating the Occupational Safety and Health

B. The punishment of each fine of KRW 500,000 against the Defendants is too uneasible and unfair.

2. Determination

A. In light of the legal principle that Defendant A did not take safety measures to ensure dangerous work at the workplace of the business owner, the lower court determined that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to acknowledge that Defendant A neglected the work without taking safety measures under Articles 6-2 and 23(1) of the Industrial Safety and Health Act, and there is no other evidence to support the fact that the work was performed without taking safety measures under the rules on occupational safety and health as seen above, and as long as Defendant B cannot be deemed an actor who did not take safety measures under the Occupational Safety and Health Act, Defendant B’s liability for the crime of Defendant B, which was based on the premise thereof, can also be seen as a crime unless Defendant B cannot be deemed an offender who did not take safety measures under the Occupational Safety and Health Act.