All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

For the reasons indicated in its holding, the lower court convicted all of the charges of violating the Act on Fire Prevention and Installation, Maintenance, and Safety Control of Fire-Fighting Systems, occupational death, and occupational accident.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal principles on fire prevention, installation, and safety control of fire-fighting systems, “persons related to specific fire-fighting objects” under the Act on Fire Prevention and Installation, Maintenance, and Safety Control of Fire-Fighting Systems, and violation of occupational duty of care, causation, predictability

In addition, since the issue of adopting the application for examination of evidence belongs to the court's discretion in principle, even if the court below rejected the application for examination of evidence by Defendant B, it did not err by infringing on Defendant B's right of defense in the court proceedings

On the other hand, Defendant A asserts that it is unreasonable for Defendant A to assume responsibility for all damages caused by the instant accident.

In light of the assertion on the intent of unfair sentencing, under Article 383 subparag. 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, an appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing is allowed only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment or imprisonment without prison labor for more than ten years is imposed. Thus, in this case where Defendant A was sentenced to a more minor punishment, the argument that the punishment is unfair is unreasonable is not a legitimate

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.