All appeals are dismissed.

1. As to Defendant I Q Co., Ltd’s appeal, the above Defendant did not submit a statement of grounds of appeal within the submission period, and Defendant did not state the grounds of appeal in the petition of appeal.

2. While examining the grounds of appeal by Defendant C in accordance with the relevant legal principles and evidence, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the facts against the rules of evidence or by misapprehending the legal principles on the organizer of the event and the duty of safety management, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal.

3. While examining the grounds of appeal by Defendant E, J, and K in accordance with the relevant legal principles and evidence, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on occupational injury or death, or by misapprehending the facts in violation of the rules of experience and the rules of evidence, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal.

Meanwhile, the argument that the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on vicarious joint and several liability in determining the sentencing constitutes the allegation of unfair sentencing.

However, under Article 383 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment or imprisonment without prison labor for not less than ten years has been imposed, an appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing is allowed. Thus, in this case where the above Defendants were sentenced to a minor punishment, the argument that the amount of punishment is unreasonable is not a legitimate

4. While examining the grounds of appeal by Defendant F in accordance with the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the duty of care in the occupational negligence crime, joint principal offender and causation, or by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal.

On the other hand, the argument that the lower court did not properly participate in the determination of sentencing is eventually the allegation that the lower court erred.