The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The lower court acquitted the Defendant on the ground that it is difficult to deem the Defendant, the contractor, to have a duty of care, such as the entries in the facts charged, in the instant case where there are no special circumstances such as the Defendant’s specific direction and supervision.

However, according to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the Defendant appears to have given specific directions to each individual work with wire ropes to the victim B when the victim B carries the wire ropes work. Thus, even if the Defendant is a contractor, he has a duty of care to take safety measures necessary for the prevention of accidents in relation to the victim B’s work. Thus, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. According to the records, the defendant, who operates the "E" page, can be found to have awarded a contract to B, which has been about 20 years prior to October 201, for the work of opening the outer cover of the house as stated in the facts charged. In the case of a contract, the contractor, in principle, has not been obliged to take safety measures necessary for the prevention of accidents in relation to the contractor's work. However, in special circumstances, such as where the contractor is given a specific management obligation with respect to the contractor's work or the contractor specifically instructs and supervises the contractor's work or individual work, the contractor has also been obliged to take safety measures necessary for the prevention of accidents in relation to the contractor's work.

(Supreme Court Decision 2008Do7030 Decided May 28, 2009). According to the record, as asserted by the prosecutor, the record reveals that the Defendant instructed C, who carried B’s wire ropes, to carry the ropes, to carry the ropes, and to carry the other tasks. However, such circumstance alone is insufficient.