The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The sentence of each sentence against the Defendants shall be suspended.

1. The decision of the court below on the summary of the grounds for appeal (each fine of five million won) is too unreasonable.

2. The determination rate of industrial accidents in Korea still increases in light of the scale of national economic growth and the degree of improvement of awareness of the general public.

In addition, this is due to the fact that there is no sufficient equipment or disregarding the norms prescribed by the laws and regulations in the industrial sector, even if there is still a long time, due to the storming of human life in the industrial sector.

In this respect, Defendant A’s crime cannot be subject to criticism.

However, in full view of the following facts: (a) Defendant A’s mistake was divided and reflected in the trial; (b) there was no history of criminal punishment; (c) there was a long-term life as a medical practitioner; and (d) Defendant A paid KRW 20 million to the victim in the original trial; and (c) the injured party expressed his intent not to be punished by the Defendants at the original trial; and (d) it is recognized that it is necessary to take the Defendants against the Defendants only once, and thus, each punishment imposed by the lower court to the Defendants is unreasonable.

3. In conclusion, the judgment of the court below is reversed pursuant to Article 364(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the defendants' appeal is with merit, and the judgment below is reversed and it is again decided as follows.

Criminal facts

The summary of the facts charged and the evidence against the Defendants recognized by this court is as follows: (a) the summary of the evidence is identical to the description of each corresponding column of the lower judgment, except for the addition of “Defendant A’s original trial statement” to the summary of the evidence. As such, it is also cited by Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Application of Statutes

1. Defendant A of the pertinent legal provision on criminal facts: Articles 268, 30 (the occupation of occupational and occupational masters), 66-2, and 23(2) (the occupation of workers by violating risk prevention measures) of the Criminal Act, and Articles 67 Subparag. 1 and 23(1)3 (the occupation of violation of risk prevention measures) of the Industrial Safety and Health Act.