The judgment below

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

Defendant

G shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than six months.

except that this judgment.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A, B, and H Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “H”). The construction error of the extended bridge of this case, including Defendant H, is merely a matter of ordinary permission due to the misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles as to the construction error of the extended bridge of this case (A) and Defendant H, etc., Defendant A and B were not recognized as occupational negligence, and the construction work as designed.

Even if it was impossible to prevent the transition of a bridge or there was a greater accident after the completion of the bridge, there is no substantial connection between the error of construction and the extension road of the bridge.

Therefore, Defendant A and B should be acquitted on the violation of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry, and as long as there is no occupational negligence on the part of the above Defendants, Defendant H should be acquitted.

(B) The facts constituting an offense against Defendant A and H in the judgment of the court below

7. A. (1) part (hereinafter “part 1”) and the facts constituting the crime of the lower judgment against Defendant H

7.(c)

(1) Part (hereinafter referred to as “ Part (2)”) does not apply to the Industrial Safety and Health Act that provides for the ordinary safety measures at the construction site as a part of the construction itself, and insofar as the lower court did not recognize Defendant A and H as having omitted safety review at the stage of examining structural specifications and design drawings for the construction of an extended bridge, the crime of violation of the Construction Industry Safety Act shall also be pronounced not guilty.

(2) Even if the above Defendants were guilty, in light of the fact that the Defendants’ negligence is very low compared to the inherent risks inherent in the design of the expanded bridge, the sentence imposed by the lower court on Defendant H, etc. (Defendant A: 2 year of suspended sentence of imprisonment; 3 years of suspended sentence of imprisonment for 1 year and 6 months; 2 years of suspended sentence of imprisonment for 1 year and 20 million won; and Defendant H: 20 million won) is too excessive.