The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Based on the relevant evidence, the following facts are acknowledged: (i) the Defendant did not receive safety inspection on cargo lifts in the place of business of D (hereinafter “D”) (hereinafter “D”); (ii) the soft line used in the instant so as to be cut or the diameter of the soft has decreased by more than 1m, but does not replace the soft; (iii) the Defendant could sufficiently anticipate the fact that there was a person using the soft while on board the normally cargo lifts; (iv) the Defendant did not provide safety education on the soft; and (v) the victims, other employees of the company, were negligent in the management of the instant so that the victims could arbitrarily board the soft, it is difficult to conclude that there is no likelihood for the Defendant’s death.

B. Therefore, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant even though the defendant was found guilty of death by occupational negligence and injury by occupational negligence, is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. The lower court held that ① the instant lifts indicated as “one person shall be free to transport goods,” ② the Defendant regularly provided safety education to his employees to the effect that “the instant lifts is exclusive to transport goods, and thus, D employees did not board the instant lifts; ③ the victims, as employees belonging to other companies, are able to visit the Defendant on the day of the instant lifts, without having to contact the Defendant in advance, and loaded road cutting machines owned by D from the second floor to the instant lifts.