All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A and C Co. 1) misunderstanding of the facts and misapprehension of the legal principles as to occupational safety and health laws and regulations, and the duty to install safety start-up equipment, etc. under the construction contract is merely against Defendant D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “D”) which is the original office under the construction contract, and not against Defendant C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C”). Thus, Defendant A and C cannot be applied to a violation of Article 67 subparag. 1 and Article 23 subparag. 3 of the Industrial Safety and Health Act, but the lower court convicted Defendant A and C of the facts charged in the instant case, by misapprehending the legal principles as to the duty to take safety measures under the Industrial Safety and Health Act and the duty of care for the injury caused by negligence, or by mismisunderstanding the facts, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B) At the I New Construction Site located in Leecheon-si (hereinafter “the accident site”), installation of a work board was impossible, and safety-based installation was installed, and Defendant A and C also demanded Defendant D to install a safety room at the accident site of this case. Although the victim J fulfilled its duty of safety measures and duty of care under the Industrial Safety and Health Act, Defendant A committed an accident that fell at the accident site of this case (hereinafter “the accident of this case”) but Defendant A fulfilled its duty of care in relation to safety measures under the Industrial Safety and Health Act, it was caused by the negligence of the victim’s work without a safety gale, the victim’s work was not finished, but the victim’s work was not finished, and thus, it was found guilty of the charge of this case against Defendant A and C, by misapprehending the legal principles on the duty under the Industrial Safety and Health Act and the duty of care for the injury caused by safety measures, or by misapprehending the facts affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2) The sentence of the lower court (Defendant A: fine of KRW 5,00,000, and fine of KRW 3,000 for Defendant C) against the illegal Defendants in sentencing is too vague.