All the judgment below against the Defendants is reversed.

Defendant

A, B, and D are subject to a fine of KRW 5 million, respectively.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendants 1) As the victim of mistake of facts was involved in the maintenance of the rash cutting team in an abnormal manner without notifying other persons, the Defendants cannot be found to have been aware of the probability of the instant death accident and breach of duty of care.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of the violation of the Industrial Safety and Health Act and the loss of duty due to the death accident in the facts charged of this case is erroneous, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2) The punishment sentenced by the lower court (Defendant A: fine of KRW 10 million; Defendant B: imprisonment for four months; imprisonment for one year; community service order for 80 hours; Defendant C: imprisonment without prison labor for six months; suspension of execution for two years; community service order for two years; Defendant D: fine of KRW 3 million) is too unreasonable.

B. The prosecutor (unfair sentencing)’s lower court’s convictions against Defendant B, C, and D are too unhued and unfair.

2. The ex officio judgment prosecutor applied for permission of changes in the indictment against Defendant C in the trial as follows. Since this court permitted this and changed the subject of the judgment, the part of the judgment of the court below as to Defendant C cannot be maintained any longer.

Nevertheless, Defendant C’s assertion of mistake of facts is still subject to determination, and this is examined below.

[Defendant C] On January 14, 2016, around 06:20, the Defendant heard the worker I’s horses from the place of business of the Plaintiff Company A (hereinafter “A”) located in Sinsi-si (hereinafter “A”), and confirmed the occurrence of 2 on the A’s machine’s board of work with the said machine, and then divided the beginning pressing to check specific errors.

In such a case, the Defendant, who is the person in charge of the management of the above machinery, is “in the process of inspection” before the beginning pressings to check errors.