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

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The lower court’s sentence (the suspended sentence of KRW 1 million against Defendant A) against Defendant A, which was unfair in sentencing, is too uneasible and unfair.

B. In light of the legal principles as to Defendant Korea’s management corporation, the Defendant did not make any effort to correct any violation of the Industrial Safety and Health Act when the Defendant inspected B from time to time, and did not neglect to exercise due diligence and supervision to prevent such violation of the Industrial Safety and Health Act on the sole ground that the on-site management officer entrusted the performance of the matters to be observed under the Industrial Safety and Health Act and provided formal safety education.

Although it cannot be seen, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant of the facts charged in this case is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles and affected the judgment.

2. Determination

A. As to the Defendant A’s assertion of unfair sentencing, safety measures under the Industrial Safety and Health Act at issue in the instant case are prescribed to prevent a worker from suffering from a sudden accident during his work. In light of the fact that a sudden reduction of the risk of causing the worker’s life and body is very serious, the Defendant’s criminal liability, who neglected the safety measures, is somewhat weak.

shall not be required to do so.

However, the defendant appears to have a attitude of recognizing and opposing all his mistake, the violation of the Industrial Safety and Health Act in this case does not lead to safety accidents, the completion of corrective measures for the violation, the defendant did not have any past record of being punished for the same crime, and there is no past record exceeding the fine of the defendant, and the defendant's age, sex, sex, environment, family relationship, circumstances after the crime, and all the sentencing conditions specified in the records and arguments in this case are considered, and thus, the defendant's punishment against the defendant cannot be deemed to be unfair because the defendant's punishment is too uneasible and unfair. Thus, the prosecutor

B. Defendant’s management.