All the judgment below is reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by a fine of seven million won.

Defendant

A The above fine shall be imposed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A’s sentence (the imprisonment without prison labor for eight months and the suspension of execution for two years) of the lower court is too unreasonable (the Defendant asserted it after the lapse of the period for appeal, and thus, does not constitute legitimate grounds for appeal, but is deemed to be subject to the judgment of the instant court by focusing on the intent to demand ex officio issuance). (b) Defendant B’s mistake of facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine is the field warden of the E company, the contracting party, and Defendant B breached its duty of care in relation to the instant accident related to the duties of the contracting party.

shall not be deemed to exist.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine and misunderstanding the facts charged in this case.

2) The sentence of the lower court (six months of imprisonment without prison labor, two years of suspended execution) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The appellate court ex officio judgment on the sentencing of Defendant A shall decide on the grounds contained in the grounds for appeal, but it may decide ex officio on the grounds not included in the grounds for appeal (Article 364(1) and 364(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act). Meanwhile, the grounds for appeal include “when the amount of punishment is deemed unfair” (Article 361-5 subparag. 15 of the same Act). The grounds for appeal include “when there are grounds for recognizing that the amount of punishment is unfair” (Article 361-5 subparag. 15 of the same Act). As such, the grounds affecting the judgment are not included in the grounds for appeal, but are subject to the appellate court’s judgment. Thus, the grounds for appeal against Defendant A

Defendant

A is recognized as having been in a position liable for the safety of the steel-line network work in which the instant accident occurred, but only entrusted the steel-line work to “the steel-line leader, etc.” and appears not to provide specific safety education, etc., and the degree of injury suffered by the victim is relatively heavy due to the instant accident.

On the other hand, Defendant A committed the instant crime when it was in the first instance.