The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact, the accident of this case was done with the gradient of the ground permitted at the time of the work of the artist of this case 【0.5∑, the gradient of the ground is 【0.9∑, and the gradient of the ground was 0.9∑ and 0.9∑. The accident of this case occurred at a place where the steel plate is not fladdled with a horizontal state, and as the court below explained, the accident of this case was caused by the work exceeding the permissible load by not installing a 130 tons of asphalt wait and working around about 50.2m to 56.5m in the radius of the working group. Thus, the judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts.

B. The sentence of the lower court (one year of imprisonment without prison labor, two years of suspended execution) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court’s judgment and the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the first instance court as to the assertion of mistake of facts, it is reasonable to view that the instant accident was a major cause for not installing a 130 tons of arms and fine exceeding the permissible load. Thus, this part of the Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

① In the response to the appraisal, the National Institute of Scientific Investigation determined that, at the time of the instant accident as a result of appraisal, the Working Group Group around 50.2m to 56.5m, the degree of booming around 83.1m, and the degree of booming around 83.1m to the level of the permission load of the instant cranes, and the cause of the instant accident seems to have exceeded the criteria of the permission load of the instant cranes. As to the cause of the instant accident, the type of the instant vehicle, such as the form of work at the steel board and the form of the subsequent dust, seems to have been likely to increase the state of emulsion.”

As to this, the Defendant calculated and completed the working party’s warning on the basis of the location of the clers away from the water level previously set up. At the time of the accident, the Defendant clers’ booming (booming degree of booming of the clers).