The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant shall be innocent.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal was that the Defendant did not work for personal reasons on August 29, 2012, the day before the instant accident occurred, and was unable to attend the team work conference. Since H did not know that the Defendant was working for the above punishment on the day of the instant accident because it did not report to the Defendant, the causal link between the Defendant’s breach of duty of care and the victim’s death is interrupted.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous by mistake or misapprehension of legal principles.

2. The facts charged in this case and the judgment of the court below

A. The Defendant, as the team leader in charge of the business affairs of the Gwanak-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City E Team, has a duty of care to check and manage safety features and other safety equipment prior to the work, and to prevent the employees and workers engaged in the work from any harsh danger.

Nevertheless, at around 10:25 on August 30, 2012, the Defendant neglected this and laid a Kakao tree with a length of about 30 meters in the F Forest in Gwanak-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City, resulting in the death of the Defendant due to the heart of the Victim G (the age of 57) who was an employee for a fixed-term period of 3 meters away from the lower part of the wooden pole on the ground that he left the middle part without towing the trees, resulting in the death of the Defendant due to the cardio-cerebrovascular and cerebral cerebrssis by taking the head of the Plaintiff’s G (the age of 57).

B. The lower court convicted the witness H, I, and J of the facts charged in the instant case by comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly examined and adopted, such as the witness H, I, and J’s respective legal statement in the lower court, the police protocol on I, the E team division, the place of work (48 seconds), and the copies of field photographs.

3. The judgment of this Court

A. The occupational negligence referred to in the crime of occupational injury is not sufficient for the violation of general and abstract duty of care related to the business and related to the business.