The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendants shall be punished by a fine of KRW 4,000,000.

Defendant

A The above fine shall be imposed.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

A. Although the Defendants posted a notice at a place where people other than the workers concerned are prohibited from entering and leaving the open space where it is easy to see the content thereof, the Defendants did not post a sign to prohibit access to the open space where the instant accident occurred, and to the vicinity thereof.

Therefore, even if the court below found the Defendants to have violated the duty to take safety measures, which is the reduction of the scope of the charges of this case, it only acquitted the Defendants as to the violation of the Occupational Negligence and Death and the Occupational Safety and Health Act as to the Defendants’ respective workers' death, among the charges of this case, and did not pronounced guilty as to the violation of the Occupational Safety and Health Act due to nonperformance of the duty to post a mark prohibiting access to the closed space. In so doing,

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendants of unreasonable sentencing (a fine of three million won per fine) is too unhued and unreasonable.

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

A prosecutor shall maintain the existing facts charged as the primary facts charged at the trial, and shall apply for the amendment of a bill of amendment to the indictment to the effect that the applicable provisions of Acts are "Articles 71, 67 subparag. 1, 23(1), (2), and (3), and 24(1) of the former Industrial Safety and Health Act (wholly amended by Act No. 16272, Jan. 15, 2019)," and the following facts charged are added as the ancillary facts charged. This court permitted the amendment, and the subject of adjudication is changed by this court. As seen below, as long as the court judged not guilty of the primary facts charged as the court below found guilty, the court below became unable to maintain it.

Defendant

A is the director of the branch office of Defendant B in Gunsan-si, who is in general charge of safety and health for its employees, and Defendant B is the director of the port cargo service.