The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The sentence of sentence against the defendant shall be suspended.

1. Of the facts charged in this case, the court below found the victim not guilty on the grounds of the judgment that the victim suffered bodily injury, such as the right-off withdrawal, etc. requiring approximately eight weeks of treatment, and found the defendant guilty on the remainder of the facts charged in relation to the crime. The only defendant appealed on the guilty part, and the prosecutor did not appeal.

The scope of the judgment of this court is limited to the guilty portion of the judgment of the court below, and the remaining acquittal portion of the grounds is exempted from the object of public defense among the parties even if they were judged in the trial. Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed.

2. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The victim of mistake and misunderstanding of legal principles did not need a special safety device, but did not directly direct the work site at which people are removed from the working site to prevent access within the working group, and they suffered injuries by themselves while leaving the work site on trees, so the defendant did not have been negligent in violating the duty of care. However, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The court below's decision on the defendant's sentencing (the fine of 2.5 million won) is too unreasonable.

3. First of all, determination of misconception of facts and misapprehension of legal principles as to whether the Defendant was at the scene of the instant accident, the lower court and the lower court were duly admitted and investigated by the evidence, i.e., the Defendant stated in the police investigation to the effect that “I did not have been at the scene of the accident, and I would like to see the fact that L would have known the Defendant of the fact that he was injured, while doing work with her husband at another site in the same farm,” and ② the witness of the lower court also stated that “I would have been inside the farm, but the Defendant was working.”