All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

Even if the court can recognize ex officio the minor criminal facts included in the criminal facts charged within the scope recognized as identical to the facts charged without the amendment of the indictment, if it does not punish them for the reason that the actual criminal facts are serious in comparison with the facts charged, and if it does not punish them for the reason that the indictment has not been modified, it shall not be recognized ex officio as violating justice and equity in light of the purpose of the criminal procedure, such as prompt discovery of substantial truth through appropriate procedures, unless it is recognized as significantly contrary to justice and equity.

On the other hand, it cannot be deemed illegal (see Supreme Court Decisions 96Do2234, Feb. 14, 1997; 2003Do2327, Jul. 11, 2003). According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below held that the accident of this case was used in a direction different from the anticipated side of the damaged party, and that the accident of this case was used in a direction different from that of the expected side of the damaged party, and that the Defendant A, a person in charge of the site, failed to perform the necessary safety measures, but conducted safety education including the designation order as a shelter every working day, and that the place was prepared as a shelter.

In full view of the fact that the Defendants’ failure to take safety measures and the occurrence of the instant accident can be seen as having been difficult to avoid trees used in the direction that the victim could have anticipated, there is a relation between the Defendants’ failure to take the safety measures and the occurrence

On the ground that it cannot be seen, the first instance judgment that acquitted the charged facts of this case was affirmed.

In light of the above circumstances, it is not recognized that the Defendants are not punished as a violation of the duty to take safety measures, and thus, it is obviously contrary to justice and equity. Thus, the Defendants are convicted of violating Article 67 subparag. 1 of the Industrial Safety and Health Act ex officio.