[Defendant B, C] Defendant B, and C’s appeal are all dismissed.

[Defendant F Co., Ltd.] Defendant F. of the lower judgment

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant B and C1) misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles (the violation of the Industrial Safety and Health Act relating to industrial accidents caused by the collapse of the non-degree, the occupational and de facto death, and the occupational and de facto injury) ① Defendant C provided education to the victims to wear a safety belt, and Defendant C provided a warning broadcast with a loudspeaker during the non-level dismantling work. Defendant B and C did not allow the victims to use a safety belt as stated in this part of the facts charged, thereby violating the duty of care and not violating the duty of care to prevent industrial accidents at the same time.

subsection (b) of this section.

② Defendant B and C installed a wall at intervals of five meters in horizontal and five meters in vertical length in compliance with the standards under Article 59 subparag. 4 of the rules on occupational safety and health standards. Defendant B and C, as indicated in this part of the facts charged, installed a wall of a non-degree exceeding the distance of five meters in horizontal and five meters in vertical length, and breached the duty of care in business and at the same time violated the duty of care to prevent industrial accidents.

subsection (b) of this section.

③ Defendant B and C did not newly reinforce the intersections, but generally, the crosssections are more than the strings.

First of all, in light of the removal, an intersection was installed in the sloping.

Even if an intersection was removed before the vision was removed, the violation of the duty of care without an intersection was related to the death or injury of the victims.

subsection (b) of this section.

2) The sentence of the lower court against Defendant B and C (Defendant B: a fine of KRW 10 million, Defendant C: a fine of KRW 7 million) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant F”) 1, who is the employee of Defendant F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant F”), and Defendant F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant F”) (the violation of the Industrial Safety and Health Act relating to industrial accidents due to the collapse of the non-school)

1. A. (1) There is no violation of the obligation to take preventive measures against industrial accidents as described in paragraph (1), and the defendant F is the defendant B.