All the defendant and prosecutor appeals are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) misunderstanding of facts Defendant 1) The Defendant is a warehouse located in Chungcheongnam-nam Budget E (hereinafter “instant warehouse”).

(2) The Defendant did not have a duty of care to prevent the fall accident by having the victim, etc. provide safety education necessary for the removal work or install a scambling to prevent the fall, etc. on behalf of the victim, etc., and by having the other safety equipment wear other safety equipment. 2) The sentence of the lower judgment on the unfair sentencing (hereinafter “the fine of KRW 4,00,000”) is too unreasonable.

B. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor (fact-finding), it is sufficiently recognized that the Defendant dismantled and disposed of the roof of asbestos slate without complying with the standards through B, even though he/she was aware that it was illegal to prevent asbestos dust from being scattered in the course of dismantling and removing roof slate containing asbestos.

2. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts

A. The lower court determined the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts in the following circumstances: (a) the Defendant, upon requesting the removal of the instant warehouse, agreed to provide B with the scrap metal from the removed warehouse in return for the removal of the warehouse; (b) the Defendant and B agreed to use the scrap metal from the removed warehouse in return for the removal of the warehouse; (c) the Defendant and B, after consultation with each other as to whether to use the equipment, such as crums, etc. in the process leading to the above agreement; and (d) decided to remove the warehouse by using three parts of the body without using the equipment last time; and (c) the Defendant and B, before the victim arrive at the site, agreed to the effect that “the Defendant will use the equipment as dangerous because the warehouse roof might be high.”