The judgment below

Of them, the part on Defendant B shall be reversed.

Defendant

B shall be punished by imprisonment without prison labor for four months.

except that this judgment.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In light of the following circumstances, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

① The Defendant did not have any expertise in the elevator, received education, and continued to repeatedly and repeatedly conduct the act of saving the passengers confined in the ordinary elevator. Thus, the Defendant’s act of opening the elevator door is not a business.

(2) The defendant is unable to be held responsible for the breach of the duty of care because he/she has received an instruction from an elevator in an emergency in which passengers are confined, and opened the elevator door. Therefore, the defendant cannot be held responsible for the violation of the duty of care because it is not possible to expect experts to take care

③ The instant accident occurred due to the failure to automatically close the elevator door even if the emergency key was omitted from the key hole, and thus, it was impossible to anticipate the occurrence of the accident. Therefore, the instant accident cannot be held liable for the failure to avoid it.

2) The punishment sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (including six months of imprisonment without prison labor, two years of suspended execution, and 80 hours of community service order) is too unreasonable.

B. In light of the following circumstances, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case is erroneous by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

① As to the duty of care to designate the storage place or storage manager with respect to the use of the emergency keys to the passenger lecture, and to educate the employees in charge in preparation for the occurrence of an elevator accident (hereinafter “first duty of care”), the Defendant is not the safety manager of the elevator of this case, and is not the above duty of care.

(2) Safety rails,.