The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles) is that the Defendant is merely the contractor for the part of the mold construction among the new construction of the multi-family house in this case. If the owner of the building who is a contractor has installed a safety rail at the construction site in addition to the part of the mold construction work, and the owner of the building who is a contractor has contracted for the work separately from the part of the mold construction work, the Defendant is not liable for the defects in safety railing to the owner of the building

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below convicting the Defendant of the facts charged of this case is erroneous by misapprehending the legal principles.

2. Determination

A. The Defendant asserted the same purport as indicated in the grounds for appeal of this case at the lower court, and the lower court rejected the assertion on the specific reasons under the title “the judgment of not guilty of Defendant A”.

B. On the other hand, a business owner’s violation of Article 66-2 and Article 23(3) of the Industrial Safety and Health Act (hereinafter “Act”) is established only when it is deemed that the act of violation was committed by the business owner, such as ordering the business owner to take safety measures as prescribed by Article 23(3) of the Act, or neglecting the safety measures despite being aware of the fact that the act of violation was being performed without taking such safety measures (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Do7030, May 28, 2009). Article 23(3) of the Act provides that a business owner shall take necessary safety measures to prevent the occurrence of danger at a place where a person engaged in work is at a risk of falling, etc. during his/her work, and that such safety measures should be taken pursuant to Article 23(3) of the Act.