Defendant

All appeals filed by A, B, C, D and prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A, B, C, and D unreasonable sentencing

B. The prosecutor (the defendant) on the grounds of unfair sentencing

2. The Defendant A and B did not comply with the safety measures set out in the relevant laws and regulations, resulting in the instant accident.

The accident of this case resulted in a serious result of the victim's death.

It is the most important obligation to take necessary measures to prevent the danger in a place where workers might fall down at work.

Therefore, even though it is somewhat difficult to take measures to prevent falling as prescribed by the law, the above obligation cannot be deemed exempted solely on the basis of the circumstance.

Defendant

A, B, C, and D have committed crimes of forging private documents and uttering of falsified investigative documents to avoid disadvantages, such as fines, etc. under the Labor Standards Act after the death of the victim.

Defendant

A has been punished for the same occupational death or violation of the Occupational Safety and Health Act.

The Defendants did not agree with the bereaved family members of the victim until now, and the bereaved family members of the victim want to punish the Defendants.

However, it is difficult to readily conclude that the instant accident had no negligence on the part of the victim.

Defendant

A deposited KRW 20 million in the original judgment.

Victims' bereaved family members are receiving the survivors' pension under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act.

Defendant

C is an initial crime.

Defendant

There is no record of punishment exceeding a fine imposed on A, B, or D.

In light of the above circumstances, even if Defendant A, B, C, and Prosecutor were to take into account the circumstances that are favorable to each of the grounds for appeal, the lower court appears to have determined the punishment within a reasonable scope, taking full account of all the circumstances regarding sentencing.

Furthermore, there are no special circumstances or changes in circumstances to change the sentencing of the lower court after the lower judgment.

All the arguments of Defendant A, B, C, D, and prosecutor that the sentencing of the lower court is unfair are rejected.

3. Conclusion Defendant A, B, and.