The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of 2.5 million won.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. In the instant case, the lower court rendered a not guilty verdict on the crime of injury by occupational negligence due to breach of duty of care, among the facts charged in the instant case, as indicated in Articles 6, 7, and 8 of the lower judgment, and found the Defendant guilty on the crime of injury by occupational negligence due to breach of duty of care as to the remaining crime of a single offense, the lower court did not render a separate

On the other hand, the defendant appealed the guilty part of the judgment of the court below on the ground of the misapprehension of the legal principle, and the prosecutor did not separately appeal the acquittal part of the reasons. The acquittal part of the reasons is also judged in the trial together with the guilty part. However, the acquittal part of the reasons was already exempted from the object of attack and defense between the parties.

Therefore, the scope of the judgment of this court is limited to the remainder except the acquittal part of the judgment of the court below, and the judgment of the court below on the acquittal part of the reasoning of the court below is not separately determined by the court below.

2. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Although the fact that the Defendant (legal scenario) S-Fin was not properly fixed on the upper part of the upper part of the aggregate, the Defendant did not have fulfilled his/her duty of care in the process of inserting S-Fin into the victim and omitted ordinary procedures.

(hereinafter “An assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine”). Moreover, even if the Defendant promptly discovered that S-Fin’s s-Fin was erroneously inserted, it can be said that the non-conforming situation may arise. Therefore, even if the victim’s s-fin’s fin’s fin’s fin’s fin’s b

The second misunderstanding of the legal principles is called ‘the second misunderstanding of the legal principles'.

(B) Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine that found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.