The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant shall be innocent.

1. In full view of the evidence of the grounds for appeal, the court below did not recognize it and erred in mistake of facts that found the defendant not guilty, although it can be found that the defendant violated his duty of care.

2. We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal for ex officio determination.

As stated in the facts charged at the trial below, the prosecutor applied for changes in the contents of Article 268 of the Criminal Act, Article 71 of the former Industrial Safety and Health Act (wholly amended by Act No. 16272, Jan. 15, 2019), Articles 67 subparag. 1 and 23(3) of the same Act, and Article 40 of the Criminal Act, as stated in the following facts. Since the court permitted the above application for changes in the indictment, the judgment below cannot be maintained any longer due to changes in the subject of the judgment.

However, the above prosecutor's assertion of mistake falls under the subject of judgment of this court and this is examined.

3. Judgment on the prosecutor's assertion of mistake of facts

A. The summary of the facts charged is that the Defendant is a field director who exercises overall control over the field direction and safety management of B construction site at the subordinate city, and C(44) is a staff member of the subordinate company D.

The business owner shall take measures necessary for the prevention of industrial accidents, such as paying safety caps to workers engaged in work at the time of the work where material objects are removed or are likely to fall, and having them wear them.

At around 14:40 on August 29, 2018, the Defendant: (a) removed a re-explosor to install a lifts; and (b) was obliged to take safety measures, such as suspending operations and controlling access to the site when workers did not wear a safety cap; and (c) preventing employees from having access to the site.

Nevertheless, the defendant is used to prevent falling.