Defendants are innocent.

Defendant A Co., Ltd. is a business owner who runs the manufacturing industry with four full-time workers at Seopo-si D, Seopo-si.

Defendant

B is Defendant A Co., Ltd. director in charge of safety and health management affairs in the same workplace.

1. Where the maintenance, cleaning, oil supply, repair, replacement, or adjustment work of writing, transportation machinery, construction machinery, etc., or other similar work is likely to cause danger to workers, Defendant B’s owner shall stop the operation of the relevant machinery;

Nevertheless, the Defendant did not stop the operation of a gregnick machine, which is a gregnife and facility generated during the construction of aggregate, and caused workers E of the said workplace (hereinafter “disasters”) to suffer from a disaster where both legss are cut on the screen day operated at the inside of the gregnife on January 31, 2013 while entering the inner wall of the gregnife in the grative machine installed at the above workplace around 14:30 on January 31, 2013.

2. Defendant A corporation did not take safety measures like Defendant B’s criminal facts for Defendant A corporation.

Maz.

1. The crime of violation of Articles 67 subparag. 1 and 23(1) of the Industrial Safety and Health Act against a business owner is established only when a business owner orders the business owner to take safety measures under Article 23(1) of the Act at his/her place of business, without taking safety measures under the regulations on safety, or neglects to take such measures despite being aware of the fact that the business is being performed without taking safety measures, and the act of violation is deemed to have been performed by the business owner. The mere fact that the above dangerous work at the place of business of the business owner was performed without taking necessary safety measures is not established.

Supreme Court Decision 2007.