The defendants' appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As to the erroneous determination of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the duty of a business owner to install the books under the Occupational Safety and Health Act and the duty not to have access to a person who is not a related worker should be interpreted in the direction of benefit to the defendant, unless there is a clear provision on the “defens” and the “related worker” in the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, so long as the defendants are more likely to benefit the defendant, the defendants shall be deemed to be “defensive” and the victim network I (hereinafter “the deceased”) shall be deemed to constitute “related worker.”

In addition, since the Defendants’ “work plans and safety education papers” prepared and prepared include risk prevention measures, operational routes and work methods, the duty to prepare work plans should be deemed to have been fulfilled.

B. An unreasonable sentencing sentence (Defendant A) imposed by the lower court on Defendant A is too unlimited and unfair.

2. Determination

A. 1) Article 23 (Safety Measures) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act (A) provides that a business owner shall take necessary measures to prevent any of the following risks in operating a business.

1. Hazards caused by machinery, tools or other equipment;

2. Hazards caused by explosive, inflammable or inflammable substances;

3. Hazards caused by electricity, heat, or other energy. (2) Business owners shall take measures necessary for the prevention of hazards caused by improper work methods, etc. in the course of excavating, quarrying, loading, unloading, timbering, transporting, operating, dismantling, handling heavy objects, and other work.

(3) A place where workers might fall down at work, where earth and sand, structures, etc. might collapse, where material objects might fall or come by flying, and where other dangers may occur in the course of work due to natural disasters.