The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) that the lower court sentenced the Defendant (one year of imprisonment with prison labor for six months and one year of suspended sentence) is too unreasonable.

2. The Defendant shows the attitude against the Defendant, recognizing the instant crime.

The Defendant is an initial offender who had no record of criminal punishment prior to the instant case.

In the trial of the court below, the defendant paid 30 million won to the victim I in the course of the judgment of the court below, and the victim wants to take the priority of the second defendant.

On the other hand, the defendant, the representative director of D, a company managing the waste incineration facility, had Co-Defendant C, a co-defendant of the court below, who did not obtain a construction machine operator's license at the H recycling facility separate work site, drive a construction machine with a weight of at least 2 tons with a device loaded with roless tracks or strings (see attached Table 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Construction Machinery Management Act). In light of the type of the above work site and the degree of injury of the worker, the injury of the worker, etc., who instructed the above work of using the stringer within the above work site and did not place the guide but did not prohibit workers from entering the workplace within the radius of work, see Article 23 (4) and (2) of the Act on the Safety and Health of the Fruits Industry, Article 200 (1) of the Rules on the Industrial Safety and Health, and caused the victim while driving the stringer with the above string part of the above stringer's treatment days.

If the leading person is placed in the workplace in accordance with the relevant laws and regulations, the occurrence of the accident seems to have been prevented, and there are circumstances in which the person tried to conceal the truth of the accident without reporting it to the police immediately after the accident.

The lower court appears to have determined the type and sentences of the Defendant, taking into account all the above circumstances, and the lower court’s judgment.