Defendant

All appeals filed against Defendants D and E by the Prosecutor against Defendants D and E are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant B’s punishment (one year of suspended sentence of imprisonment with prison labor for April) is too unreasonable.

B. It is reasonable to view that the part other than each subparagraph of Article 29(2) of the Industrial Safety and Health Act referred to in Article 29(2) refers to the part other than each subparagraph of Article 29(1) of the Industrial Safety and Health Act (the part other than each subparagraph of paragraph (1). Thus, the act of failing to comply with the measures under Article 29(2)2 of the above Act (the inspection of the place of work and the management of safety and health) constitutes a violation of Article 29(1) of the above Act and thus, the act of failing to comply with the measures under Article 29(2)2 of the above Act constitutes a violation of Article 29(1) of the above Act.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on different premise, which acquitted Defendants D and E of the facts charged of the instant case on the violation of the duty to take measures for safety and health management, such as conducting tour inspections, etc.

2. Determination

A. As to the prosecutor’s allegation of the grounds of appeal as to the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the prosecutor’s misapprehension of the above legal principles, the part presented in the lower court also became a key issue (The record shows that the presiding judge of the lower court orders the prosecutor to review whether to revoke the public prosecution on the date of the fourth public trial, and the prosecutor applied for changes in the indictment to add Article 29(1) in the preceding part of Article 29(2) of the Industrial Safety and Health Act with regard to this part of the facts charged at the fifth public trial date, and the same modification of the indictment was completed). The lower court, based on the following circumstances as stated in its reasoning, “the part of innocence”, on the premise that Article 29(2) of the Industrial Safety and Health Act is a provision specifying measures to prevent industrial accidents as stipulated in Article 29(1)2 of the same Act and Article 30(1)1(a) of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act, thereby violating Article 29(1) of the same Act.

In that regard, applying Article 70 of the same Act can be punished.

(b) consider.