The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. According to Article 23(3) of the Industrial Safety and Health Act, a business owner shall take necessary measures to prevent risks in a place where workers might fall down at work, where soil and sand, structures, etc. might collapse, where material objects might fall or might fall, or where other risks may arise due to natural disasters in the course of work. The business owner’s duty to take safety measures as above arises regardless of whether the business owner was specifically instructed by the business owner at the time of the fall of the worker, or whether the business owner was anticipated to fall in the course of performing the pertinent work, and as long as the worker died in violation of such duty, the penal provisions of Article 66-2 of the same Act shall apply.

Nevertheless, on the premise that the penal provisions of Article 66-2 of the Industrial Safety and Health Act apply only when a worker dies while working, the lower court instructed the network D to drive a car without taking safety measures under the Industrial Safety and Health Act.

In the absence of such safety measures, the court below acquitted the Defendants on the ground that the deceased could not be deemed to have neglected the fact that he violated the scope of duties and instructions for the operation of a camera in violation of such duties and instructions. In so doing, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Under Article 23(3) of the Industrial Safety and Health Act, a business owner shall take necessary measures to prevent risks in work, such as a place where workers might fall down at work, etc., and shall delegate the safety measures to be taken by the business owner under Article 23(4) and (3) of the same Act, and shall be delegated by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Labor.