The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Article 71 of the Industrial Safety and Health Act provides that if a representative, agent, employee, or employee of a corporation violates the duty to take measures to prevent risks under Article 23 (1) of the same Act and causes the death of an employee, not only shall the offender be punished, but also the corporation shall be punished by a fine: Provided, That where the corporation does not neglect considerable attention and supervision over the relevant business in order to prevent such violation, the above joint penal provisions shall not apply to the corporation. Whether the corporation neglected the duty of considerable attention and supervision, namely, all circumstances related to the relevant violation, namely, the legislative purport of the relevant Act, the degree of infringement of legal interests anticipated to violate the penal provisions, the degree of infringement, the purpose of preparing joint penal provisions as to the relevant violation, as well as the specific form of the violation and the degree of damage or result actually caused by the violation, the possibility of supervision or supervision over the corporation's business

(2) On September 2, 2010, the lower court determined that the Defendant Company was the business owner of the removed construction in this case and that the Defendant Company was in the position of managing and supervising the site of the removed construction in this case under the direction of the Defendant Company. However, the liability of the corporation under the joint penal provisions cannot be deemed to include cases where the employee was negligent in supervising the site of the removed construction in the name of the corporation. ② The organization or organization of the Defendant Company was a small-scale company, and ③ unlike other exclusive employees, the Defendant Company was in a flexible form.