The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of four million won.

, however, for one year from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant was merely an employee of the contractor company, and the Defendant did not have a duty of care in relation to C (U) U. Ulsan Branch Electric Repair Work (hereinafter “instant construction work”), and was unaware of the fact that at the time of the instant accident, the victims were scheduled to perform the construction work of the YY.

B. The lower court’s sentence is too heavy.

2. Determination

A. We examine the evidence legitimately adopted and examined by the court below as to the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles in comparison with the reasons stated in the 3th 8th 8th 4th 15th , and examine the following circumstances, etc., which can be known by the above evidence, the court below's judgment that found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is just, and there is no error of misconception of facts or misapprehension of legal principles

1) The Defendant, as the director of C(State) public service team, was in a position in charge of overall management of the instant construction work, such as the selection of a contracting company, conclusion of a contract, and field management. D, at the court of original instance, stated in the court of original instance that “The Defendant confirmed at the middle where the instant construction work was performed, and discussed and instructed the method of installation of electric lights and ice locations.” At the time, the Defendant also viewed the victims as at the time of the instant construction work as at the time.”

According to the “written performance of safety rules,” submitted to the Defendant by the Defendant of No. 91. 3D of the trial record, the “this case’s construction site safety management rules and company instructions shall be thoroughly implemented during the construction site work, and if not implemented, the construction work shall be suspended or any measures shall be taken.”

No. 106 of the evidence record, the Defendant, as a field supervisor of the instant construction project, has complied with D’s safety management rules at the construction site.