The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (based on factual errors or misapprehension of legal principles) has a duty of care to notify the victim of the operating principles of machinery, risks arising from operation, and measures to be taken to prevent risks.

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is an employee of “E” of the manufacturer of the packaging paper located D at the time of Pakistan.

At around 14:00 on April 1, 2015, the Defendant visited the above factory with abnormal sound from the above machinery, and asked the victim F, who was repairing another machinery, to check and request the above machinery.

In such cases, the defendant who requests the inspection of machinery has a duty of care to prevent accidents by blocking all of the machinery, making the machinery not operated, or informing the checkup person of the fact that the whole of the machinery has not been cut off in advance.

Nevertheless, the Defendant did not cut off all the above machinery and did not warn the victim as to whether or not to cut off the electric power source, and caused the victim to suffer bodily injury because the victim operated the above machinery to check the level of the above machinery by negligence and caused the victim to close the left hand hand hand hand of the above machinery.

B. The lower court determined that the victim had engaged in the repair business of the compact presses, etc. with the trade name of “G”, and had checked whether there was anything wrong upon the Defendant’s request at the time of the instant case, but the Defendant had no expertise in examining the operation principles of the compact presses connected thereto or whether there was anything wrong. Rather, the victim did not have expertise in examining whether there was any operation principles of the compact presses connected thereto.