The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendants shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,500,000.

Defendant

A The above fine shall be imposed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In full view of Articles 4 and 26 of the Asbestos Safety Control Act and Article 37(4)4 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, the Act on the Safety Control of Asbestos shall apply in preference to the Occupational Safety and Health Act. The instant case constitutes a case where the asbestos slate damaged by typhoons was disposed of, and thus, it cannot be punished under Article 37(4)4 of the Enforcement Decree of the Asbestos Safety Control Act, the lower court erred by applying the Occupational Safety and Health Act to the Defendants.

B. Even if the instant case is subject to the Occupational Safety and Health Act, a violation of Article 38-3 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act (a person who removes or dismantles a structure or facility containing asbestos shall comply with the working standards for dismantling or removing asbestos prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Employment and Labor) cannot be punished by absorbing and punishing a person registered with the Minister of Employment and Labor in violation of Article 38-4(1) of the same Act (where the content and size of an asbestos inspection subject to the institution’s asbestos inspection contain asbestos above the content and size prescribed by Presidential Decree, the owner of the structure or facility shall have the person registered with the Minister of Employment

2. Determination

A. Before deciding on the grounds for appeal by the Defendants ex officio, each violation of the Occupational Safety and Health Act as stated in the judgment of the court below against the Defendants is related to concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and should be punished as a single sentence within the scope of the term of punishment increased by concurrent crimes pursuant to Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act. However, since the court below erred by omitting aggravated crimes in applying the statutes and imposed a single sentence against the Defendants, the judgment below cannot be maintained.

However, the Defendants’ assertion of the above misapprehension of legal principles still exists despite the above reasons for reversal of authority.