The Defendants’ appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The punishment of Defendant A (2 million won of a fine) sentenced by the lower court is excessively unreasonable.

B. Defendant B (1) misunderstanding of facts has ordered Co-Defendant B to work after fixing the work launch board through Co-Defendant B, Co-Defendant B, the contractor, and Defendant B failed to comply with G’s order despite the delivery of the above order to G, and thus, Defendant B was in the occurrence of an accident. As such, Defendant B was guilty of the facts charged in the instant case, even though it did not take safety measures to prevent industrial accidents.

(2) The crime of violation of the Occupational Safety and Health Act is established only when a business owner instructs work without taking safety measures as prescribed by the rules on industrial safety standards in relation to an occupation dangerous to safety, or neglecting such measures despite being aware of the fact that work is performed without taking safety measures. Although Defendant B did not know of the fact that work is performed without fixing the work launch, the court below found Defendant B guilty of the charges in this case, the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the duty to take safety measures under the Occupational Safety and Health Act.

(3) The sentence imposed by the lower court on the grounds of unreasonable sentencing is excessively unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The relevant provisions (1) / [Industrial Safety and Health Act] Article 29 (Safety and Health Measures at the time of a contracting project) (1) of the same Act concerning the determination of the mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles with respect to Defendant B’s assertion of the industrial accidents caused by his/her employees and his/her employees’ work at the same place where any of the following projects is conducted at the same place.