All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. The decision of the court below on the gist of the grounds for appeal (for defendant A, 8 months of imprisonment, 2 years of suspended sentence, 2 years of suspended sentence of imprisonment for six months, 2 years of suspended sentence of imprisonment, 7,000, 000 won of each fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Defendant A and the Defendants were aware of the instant crime and in depth, and the victim’s bereaved families are expected to receive industrial accident compensation insurance proceeds in relation to the instant accident, as well as to recover from the amount of damages paid by Defendant B’s compensation. Accordingly, the Defendants’ bereaved families do not want punishment against the Defendants by mutual consent with the victim’s bereaved families. Since the instant crime, the Defendants endeavored to prevent the recurrence of the accident by conducting regular safety education and installing facilities such as safety railing, etc. to employees after the instant crime.

However, even if the Defendants were not engaged in transporting workers or carrying workers by using mobile liftss, the Defendants ordered the victims of their work to board the work team connected to the mobile cranes and to install the C-type lectures at a height of about 10 meters. The degree of violation of the duty of care in itself is important.

It cannot be seen that the victim did not take a minimum safety measure to prevent the fall by ordering the victim to work with a high risk of falling as above, but did not take a minimum safety measure to prevent the fall by installing a rail on a mobile rail, and the Defendants’ negligence led to a serious consequence of the Defendants’ loss of life. Defendant A has the power of being sentenced to a fine of one million won for the same kind of crime in the past, and for the safety of workers at industrial sites where the risk of human life exists.