The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (the factual error) ① The victim's service is to confirm whether the facilities of this case work normally, so it is difficult to deem that the occurrence of malfunctions in the facilities of this case could not be predicted at all for the purpose of confirming the cause thereof or simple maintenance; ② No warning is posted on the rail on the facilities of this case to warn him that he will not go beyond the rail, ③ it is difficult for the victim to readily conclude that he is on the part of the air, in light of the J's statement, etc., the defendants did not take necessary measures to prevent industrial accidents, such as failing to install an emergency stop device and a dry bridge in the vicinity of the facilities of this case; Defendant A did not fulfill such duty of care; Defendant A did not perform such duty of care; and there was causation between the violation of such duty and the death of the victim, but all of the charges of this case are found not guilty.

2. Determination

A. The lower court determined that the instant facts charged constitute a case where there is no proof of crime, and thus, acquitted.

Article 192 of the Rules on the Standards for Occupational Safety and Health Violation against Defendants 1 provides that “Any business owner shall install a device capable of immediately suspending the operation of a consortium, etc. in cases where there is a concern that workers might be in danger, such as the failure of parts of the body of the relevant worker to a consortium, etc., or in case of an emergency: Provided, That this shall not apply in cases where workers might not be in danger by using the consortium only in a non-powered condition.” Article 195(1) of the Rules provides that “the business owner shall prevent danger in cases where the workers are in excess of the worker on the part of a consortium, etc. in operation.”