The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. According to the trade agreement between H and Defendant C (hereinafter “Defendant C”), and the construction agreement between Defendant C and F, Defendant C and the gist of the grounds for appeal, it is recognized that Defendant C awarded a contract to F for removal, transport, and reconstruction of the Irrrings (hereinafter “instant cycles”) during a series of processes of removal, transport, and re-establishment of the Irrings (hereinafter “instant”) and that Defendant C regularly placed two or more employees of Defendant C and ordered F to undergo specific work instructions of the said employee.

In addition, according to the statement made by Defendant B and A investigation agency, it is recognized that Defendant B was a field manager dispatched by Defendant C and was in charge of overall management of the site. As such, Defendant C is a business owner who is carried out in the same place as “Article 29(3) and (1) of the Industrial Safety and Health Act” and is a business owner who is given a contract by separating part of the business.

2. The court below held that each of the facts charged of this case is premised on the premise that Defendant C's business operation in the same place falls under the "business owner" of the business under the contract by separating part of the business, and even upon examining all the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, it is not sufficient to acknowledge that Defendant C falls under the above business owner, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Rather, according to the records of this case, Defendant C purchased the cap of this case from H, and then dismantled to dismantle it and sell it to F for the purpose of selling it.