All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In relation to Defendant A and B’s occupational negligence and negligence, the victim was found guilty of this part of the facts charged, even though Defendant A and B did not neglect the duty of care to prevent accidents, the victim did not neglect the duty of care to prevent the occurrence of accidents. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2) In relation to Defendant A and C’s violation of the Industrial Safety and Health Act, the lower court convicted Defendant A and C of this part of the charges, on the grounds that there was no fact that Defendant A and C had employees go beyond the scope of their employees, such as a consortium in driving. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court (Defendant A: 8 months of imprisonment, 2 years of suspended sentence / Defendant B: imprisonment without prison labor in April, 1 year of suspended sentence / Defendant C: fine of KRW 5 million) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Determination 1 on the assertion of misunderstanding of facts and legal principles 1) Determination on the assertion of occupational mistake and negligence is based on the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, i.e., the following circumstances acknowledged by evidence: (i) Defendant A and B led to the confession of all this part of the facts charged in the court below; and (ii) Defendant B was working for the police at night at the time of the instant case.