The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by a fine of KRW 5,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In the instant case, Defendant A1’s mistake and misapprehension of the legal doctrine led to the Defendant’s act, and the instant accident occurred due to the misunderstanding of the safety report by the manager of the railroad operation and the Plaintiff’s work instruction for the work manager L, which led to the Defendant’s act, and thus, there is no considerable relation between the Defendant’s act and the instant accident’s act of removing the Defendant’s land adjoining to North Korea and the instant accident.

In addition, the defendant was engaged in the work without any electricity supplied to M due to the lack of electricity at the work site, and the defendant was engaged in the work by finding out the error of the contents of the vision or hearing some parts of it.

Even if there is no possibility of criticism against the defendant.

2) The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (the imprisonment without prison labor for eight months and the suspension of execution for two years) is too unreasonable.

B. In fact, it was true that Defendant B (1) and misunderstanding of the legal principles ordered the removal of the contact site at the construction site by the Defendant’s misunderstanding of the facts, but the content of the order was to be removed only from the contact site on the other side while maintaining the contact site on the north side, and there was no accident since the current passed through the ground through the contact site on the north side. The accident in this case occurred due to the removal of the contact site on the north side of A, the erroneous report of the manager of the railroad operation safety, and the order of the operator’s L/S work. Thus, there was a possibility of considerable causal relation between the Defendant’s fault and the accident in this case, or the Defendant was predicted about the accident in this case.

shall not be deemed to exist.

2) The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (the imprisonment without prison labor for eight months and the suspension of execution for two years) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Determination 1 on Defendant A’s assertion is due to the fact-finding and misapprehension of the legal doctrine so long as the Defendant’s negligence caused the result of the victim’s thought.