The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant

A is punished by fine of KRW 2,00,000, and Defendant B is punished by fine of KRW 3,000,000.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As to the Defendants’ violation of the Industrial Safety and Health Act due to the death of workers among the facts charged in the instant case claiming that the Defendants are true, Defendant A did not have a duty of care, such as the description of the facts charged, and even if having a duty of care.

Even if such breach of duty of care and the death of the victim have no substantial connection with the victim.

B. The lower court’s sentence (the amount of KRW 5 million by each of the Defendants) against Defendant A by the Defendants and the Prosecutor is too heavy or too unfasible (the Defendants are the Defendant A by the Prosecutor).

2. Judgment on the Defendants’ assertion of mistake of facts

A. The summary of this part of the facts charged is the business owner who runs the business of manufacturing and constructing steel structures with the main office located in the Guro-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government C Building D, and Defendant A is a person who manages the production and installation of steel structures by using 47 full-time workers at the above company in the foregoing company in the case of compatibility of the director of Defendant B as the director of Defendant B.

1) Defendant A (Violation of the Child Safety and Health Act, occupational violation, and death or injury)’s business owner must install a wheel slves and a slves, slves, etc. on the parts where employees, such as a wheel slves and chain, are likely to face danger, and when conducting maintenance, cleaning, oil testing, repair, replacement, adjustment or other similar work, such as public works machinery, transportation machinery, construction machinery, etc., are likely to cause danger, the operation of the relevant machinery must be stopped.

Nevertheless, at around 11:50 on December 1, 2016, the Defendant covers an employee F (hereinafter “victim”) of the person who was damaged by the chemical equipment room of the above company, using NC snife machine (hereinafter “the instant machine”) to conduct the NC nC snife processing (hereinafter “the instant machine”). In doing so, the Defendant covers the above machine that is likely to face danger to the employee.