The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the court below found the Defendants not guilty of the facts charged in this case. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles and misunderstanding facts, although the Defendants sealed residues containing asbestos content in vinyl or other materials similar thereto, and failed to dispose of them pursuant to the Wastes Control Act by attaching a mark at the time of disposal of asbestos content residues, etc.

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case Defendant A Co., Ltd. established August 1, 2003 for the purpose of collecting and transporting designated wastes in Gangnam-gun, Gangnam-gun, Gangnam-gun, and is a corporate owner who employs five regular workers.

Defendant

B is a person in charge of safety and health management who exercises overall control over and manages the affairs concerning safety and health of employees under his/her control at the site of “the removal of designated wastes from E and one B (F)” located in Gangnam-gun, Gangnam-gun, Seoul Special Metropolitan City (hereinafter “instant construction”).

1) Defendant B’s business owner should treat asbestos-containing residuess, etc. generated in the process of dismantling or removing asbestos in vinyls or other similar materials with signs attached thereto for the disposal of asbestos-containing residuess pursuant to the Wastes Control Act. Nevertheless, on September 14, 2017, Defendant B did not comply with the provisions on the disposal of asbestos-containing residuess, etc. by having asbestos-containing residues remain in the floor of the science room, the floor of the school, the floor of the information room, the creative frame and floor of the information room, the floor of the health room, the floor of the health room, and the multi-purpose window frame. Accordingly, the Defendant did not take measures necessary to prevent industrial accidents. (2) Defendant A Defendant A, a corporation, the representative of the Defendant, did not take measures necessary to prevent industrial accidents as stated in paragraph (1) and paragraph (1) with respect to the Defendant’s duties.