The judgment below

The part against the defendant shall be reversed.

The defendant shall be innocent.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the defendant, as the representative director of F, has a duty of care to specifically instruct and supervise the work of loading and unloading the joint board loaded on container vehicles. Thus, the defendant's occupational negligence is sufficiently recognized. There is a relation between the defendant's occupational negligence and the occurrence of the accident in this case.

I would like to say.

Nevertheless, the court below which acquitted the defendant, has erred by misunderstanding facts or by violating the rules of evidence, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for ex officio appeal, the Prosecutor applied for changes in indictment with the content that the Defendant changed the facts charged against the Defendant as stated in the following “Amended facts charged,” and the subject of this Court’s permission. As such, the part of the judgment of the lower court against the Defendant cannot be maintained.

Although there are such reasons for ex officio reversal, the issue of the revised facts charged is substantially the same as the grounds for appeal by the prosecutor on this part, and thus, the prosecutor’s mistake and misapprehension of legal principles still are subject to the judgment of this

Therefore, the following 3. We examine the above in this paragraph, and examine the facts charged as changed in the trial.

【Revised facts charged】 The representative of F in charge of the production of building materials, who is a person in charge of the overall management of safety management, etc. of the above company, and A is a person in charge of the operation of the above company.

The Defendant, from January 21, 2014 to February 2, 201 of the same month, ordered A to load and unload the joint plates loaded on container vehicles at the F’s workplace located in Kimhae-si G from around January 21, 2014, when the Defendant loaded the joint plates in container vehicles into two and the loading and unloading work is carried out by using the same vehicle.