The judgment below

Of the defendants C, the part of the defendant is reversed.

Defendant

C shall be punished by a fine of KRW 2,000,000.

Defendant

C above.

1. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence presented by the prosecutor in the summary of the grounds for appeal, Defendant D Co., Ltd. was found to have been in charge of the overall management and supervision of the safety management duties, such as that employees living at the site of this case, conducting safety education, and informing workers of the risk factors every day through participation in physical investigation. Thus, it is reasonable to view that the business part of this case was a business operator who separately contracted for a contract, and was responsible for taking measures for preventing industrial accidents under Article 29(3) and (1)1 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act. However, the court below acquitted Defendant D Co., Ltd. of this case on the ground that it

2. We examine ex officio judgment, and the prosecutor, while maintaining the facts charged as to the violation of the existing Occupational Safety and Health Act against the defendants not guilty as the primary facts charged by the court below. In addition, the facts charged as to the violation of the above Occupational Safety and Health Act (the facts charged as to the acquittal portion) against the defendants and the facts charged as to the violation of the above changed Occupational Safety and Health Act with respect to the defendants C together with the facts charged as to the violation of the above changed Occupational Safety and Health Act (the facts charged as to the occupational negligence and death in the front and rear). The prosecutor applied for the amendment of the indictment with respect to the above violation of the occupational negligence (the facts charged as to the conviction portion

However, as seen below, as long as this Court rendered a not guilty verdict of the primary charges, the corresponding part of the judgment of the court below which only is the primary charges can no longer be maintained.

However, despite the above reasons for ex officio destruction, the argument of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles as to the primary facts still are subject to the judgment of this court.