The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. A work together with the F, who died of the summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles) (hereinafter “the Deceased”).

According to the J’s statement, since the Defendant appears to have ordered the Deceased to work, the Defendant was negligent in the death of the Deceased, and solely because the Defendant provided services to an external enterprise, it cannot be deemed that the business owner’s failure to take safety measures is exempted. Therefore, the Defendant also violated the occupational health and safety law that takes appropriate measures for safety

2. Determination

A. The crime of violation of Article 66-2 and Article 23(3) of the Industrial Safety and Health Act is established only when the business owner instructs work at the workplace operated by him/her without taking safety measures as stipulated in Article 23(3) of the said Act, or neglects to take such measures despite being aware of the fact that the work is being performed without taking such safety measures. The crime of violation is not established solely on the fact that other possible safety measures than the safety measures as stipulated in the said regulations have not been taken by the business owner. In light of the above legal principles, the issue of this case is whether the defendant ordered work without taking safety measures, or neglected to take such measures despite being aware of the fact that the work is being performed without being supported by the business owner.

The following circumstances acknowledged by the record, namely, ① the Defendant does not operate the hotel of this case as its main business, but operates a company that produces a sper in Seoul. The hotel of this case is limited to three to four visits per year.