The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The gist of the grounds for appeal is that the Defendant, as a contractor, knew of the fact that the establishment of a new period is being carried out without taking safety measures, he/she has neglected it, and has not taken safety measures under Article 23(1) of the Industrial Safety and Health Act.

Nevertheless, the lower court acquitted the Defendant on this part of the facts charged. In so determining, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine and erroneous determination.

2. The lower court, in principle, did not have a duty to take safety measures necessary for preventing accidents in relation to the contractor’s work, but under the premise that the contractor has a duty to manage and supervise the contractor’s work, or that the contractor has a duty to take safety measures necessary for preventing accidents in relation to the contractor’s work, in special circumstances, such as where the contractor has been given specific duty to manage and supervise the contractor’s work, or the contractor has specifically ordered and supervised the contractor’s work, the contractor does not participate in the process of calculating the worker recruitment and wages of the K who provided human resources to B and B; ② The instant mechanical installation work of this case was directed and supervised by the Defendant as a whole; ② the K used the machinery installation work of this case by the daily workers from the Do; ③ the Defendant took part in the work of the contractor’s work; ③ the Defendant took part in the work site on the part of the contractor’s work site; or the Defendant did not actively explain the installation of the machinery or the method of assembling the machinery in the work site on the part of the contractor’s.