The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In light of the legal principles, the Defendant did not know whether a high-tension vessel has been installed at the instant site, and there was no explanation from the victims, and the Defendant was merely engaged in the instant work in accordance with the direction of the victims. B. The punishment of the lower court which was unfair in sentencing (3 million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. As to the assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine, first of all, in addition to the Defendant’s work direction confirmed by on-site photographs (the 11th page of evidence records), and the location of the instant high-tension vessels, the Defendant himself stated at the police that “In doing work, the Defendant would have been frightened by any high-tension line in the vicinity, but I think that “In doing so, the Defendant would be fine, even if having opened electric wires.”

Since the work was expected to take a short time, I did not think of it seriously.

“The same is the same as the one in which the high voltage cable was known, but the latter thought too much.

In light of the fact that the Defendant was well aware at the time of the instant site that a high voltage line was installed.

It is reasonable to view it.

In addition, in addition to the above statements by the defendant, the victim H gave the defendant attention to the police that "if the high pressure line passes above, the defendant who operates the cater has been near the withdrawal machine and several times.

Despite that fact, the Defendant continued to work without hearing.

" and I think it is the incidental principle of the defendant who has been working near the high voltage line outside the warehouse even though the third party has taken a prior attention."

“The court of the court below made a statement,” and in the court of the court below, “I will prevent internal noise.”

In the end, the defendant was aware of his speech and the accident occurred.

In light of the fact that the Defendant stated to the effect that “”, notwithstanding the victim H’s care, the Defendant did not pay any particular attention to the risks before the reduction.