All appeals filed by the prosecutor against the Defendants are dismissed.

1. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the court below found the Defendants guilty of the charges, but found the Defendants not guilty of the charges. The court below erred by misapprehending the facts.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, the lower court appears to have ordered Defendant B (hereinafter “B”) to perform the above construction work on January 2015, 201 by entering into a contract with the K Remodeling located in Suwon-gu, Suwon-si, Suwon-si, the Air Force H, and subcontracted the entire construction work to C, and thereby, deemed that C performed the said construction work. The evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone was sufficient to support Defendant B’s employees to work at the site of the construction work as indicated in the facts charged, or to instruct C or its employees to work.

It is insufficient to conclude it, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, and the Defendants were acquitted.

B. The crime of violation of Article 67 subparag. 1 and Article 23 subparag. 2 of the Industrial Safety and Health Act against a business owner is established only when it is acknowledged that the act of violation was committed by the business owner, such as ordering the business owner to perform dangerous work in safety under Article 23 subparag. 2 of the Industrial Safety and Health Act without taking safety measures as prescribed by the rules on the industrial safety standards at the business owner’s place of business operated by him/her, or neglecting it with knowledge of the fact that the above work was performed without taking safety measures (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Do8874, Mar. 29, 2007). In addition, the duty to take safety measures under Article 23 of the Industrial Safety and Health Act applies to a case where an actual employment relationship between the business owner and his/her employee is established as a duty to prevent disasters that the business owner should bear by using his/her employee (see Supreme Court Decision 2007.