All appeals filed by the prosecutor against the Defendants are dismissed.

1. According to the evidence submitted by the gist of the grounds of appeal, Defendant B should be deemed to have caused the instant accident by failing to perform his/her duty of care, even though the occurrence of the instant accident was sufficiently foreseeable and the specific and direct duty of care to prevent the occurrence of the accident was to be exercised.

The judgment of the court below which acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged of this case is erroneous.

2. In addition to the circumstances indicated in the judgment of innocence, the lower court’s reasoning reveals the following circumstances: (i) disaster victims entered the company of the Defendant A (hereinafter “Defendant Company”) on March 2010 and have overall control over the asphalt plant; (ii) Defendant B did not instruct the disaster victims to conduct the internal cleaning work on the date of the instant case; (iii) there was no order from the disaster victims to report the said work to the third person; (iv) three employees are in charge of cleaning the integrated period; (iv) one is in charge of the internal cleaning; and (v) one is in charge of the internal cleaning of the integrated period; and (v) one is in charge of the internal cleaning of the integrated period; and (v) the other is in charge of the internal cleaning of the integrated period; and (v) one is in charge of the internal cleaning of the integrated period; and (v) the other is in charge of the internal cleaning of the scrap to the outer screen of the integrated period; and (e) one is in charge of the internal cleaning of the final period.