The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts 1) Although the Defendant entered into a money repair contract with D and ordered the victims to perform the above construction work, the Defendant’s non-forest construction contract for the warehouse owned by D (hereinafter “instant construction”) is separately stated.

(2) Although the Defendant did not instruct the victims to perform the instant construction work, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts charged, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. 2) The Defendant ordered the victims to perform the instant construction work.

Even if it is actually impossible to expect that explosives, such as powders, etc., will occur in the above warehouse, and the defendant believed that the victims who are used in the above warehouse believe that they will remove dangerous articles and work in the vicinity of the work before the work, so it is difficult to see that there is negligence on the part of the victims. However, the judgment of the court below convicting the victims of the facts charged of this case, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, is erroneous.

B. The 1-year imprisonment without prison labor sentenced by the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below 1 on the assertion of mistake of facts, the defendant entered into a contract with L for construction of “U farm,” which is the “U farm,” which is the L farm located at the end of February 201, with L, with the cost of KRW 70,00,000,000,000 of the construction cost. ② D’s wife, after considering that L, the above construction work is carried out by D, K, the wife, requested the defendant to accept and request the payment of the money of “E farm” owned by D at the time of truth. Accordingly, the defendant entered into a contract with D and K to repair the money of the said “E farm” at the cost of construction.