All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. The main point of the grounds for appeal is that the lower court’s sentence (10 months of imprisonment, 2 years of suspended sentence in six months of imprisonment, and 5 million won of fine: Defendant C) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Defendant A recognized and aware of his mistake, and deposited KRW 15 million for the bereaved family members of the victim.

However, the defendant, without obtaining a construction machinery operator's license, was operating more at the site of an accident for a long time, and eventually caused the accident of this case. As a result, causing the death of the victim and causing irreparable damage to the victim and his/her bereaved family members, but did not reach an agreement with the victim's bereaved family members.

There is no change in the sentencing conditions of the court below for the first time in the trial.

In addition, when comprehensively considering the various circumstances that are conditions for sentencing, such as the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, and circumstances after the crime, the sentence of the Defendant’s sentence is inevitable, and it is not recognized that the lower court’s sentence of imprisonment with labor for not less than 10 months is too unfair.

Therefore, the defendant's appeal is without merit.

B. The Defendants B and C deposited a total of KRW 40 million for the victim’s bereaved family members, including additional deposit of KRW 10 million in the first instance court.

However, the Defendants failed to take appropriate safety measures, such as assigning safety management personnel to a bank or establishing a license for a longer period of time, which led to the death of the victim, since the Defendants, without a construction machinery operator license, had a construction machinery operator operate more than a long period of time.

According to the above circumstances, the Defendants’ negligence was severe and did not yet have been agreed with the victims’ bereaved families. In full view of these circumstances, the lower court’s punishment is within the reasonable discretionary scope.