All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A (unfair sentencing) asserted as the ground for appeal that there was a misunderstanding of facts, along with the religious malpractice, Defendant A’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts on the third trial date. However, Defendant A withdrawn from the misunderstanding of facts on the third trial date.

The punishment sentenced by the court below to Defendant A (the penalty of KRW 800,000) is too unreasonable.

B. (1) The judgment of the court below which convicted the Defendant Company on the ground of the violation of the duty to take safety measures under the Industrial Safety and Health Act is unlawful, even though the Defendant Company was guilty on the ground that the failure to take safety measures under the Industrial Safety and Health Act could not be taken due to paralysis with the joint supplier at the time of the entry of the instant facts charged.

Shebly the sentence sentenced by the court below to the defendant company (the penalty amount of KRW 800,00) is too unreasonable.

2. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court regarding the Defendant Company’s assertion of mistake, the lower court can sufficiently recognize the fact that Defendant A, as at the time of the instant case, failed to properly perform the duty to take safety measures under Article 23 of the Industrial Safety and Health Act, as stated in the facts charged in the instant case. As alleged by the Defendant Company, it cannot be said that the illegality of the breach of the duty to take safety measures is eliminated or there is no possibility of expectation for the implementation of the duty

In addition, Defendant Company exercised due care and supervision to prevent Defendant A’s breach of safety measures as above.

It does not seem that it does not appear.

Therefore, we cannot accept the Defendant’s assertion of factual mistake.

3. There is no new circumstance or special change of circumstances that can be reflected in sentencing after the judgment of the court below regarding the Defendants’ unfair assertion of sentencing.

The Defendants are the first offender, and the Defendants are the joint recipients, such as the Defendants’ assertion, to take the duty of safety measures under the Industrial Safety and Health Act.