The judgment below

The part against the Defendants is reversed.

Defendant

B Fine of 20,000,000 won, Defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The crime of occupational negligence and occupational negligence in the judgment against Defendant B by misunderstanding the legal principles as to Defendant B and the crime of violation of the Industrial Safety and Health Act are in a mutually competitive relationship.

Although each of the above crimes is in a substantive competition relationship, each of the above crimes is in a substantive competition relationship.

In light of the above legal principles, the court below’s aggravated punishment is erroneous and adversely affected by the judgment.

B. The sentence against the Defendants (Defendant B: Imprisonment with prison labor for August, Defendant E: fine of KRW 7 million) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) Determination of the misapprehension of the legal principle on the assertion of the misapprehension of the legal principle is based on the facts constituting a violation of Article 23 (3) of the Industrial Safety and Health Act by failing to take such preventive measures as above, and the occupational duty and occupational duty of care are consistent with the above occupational duty and one act constitutes a violation of the Industrial Safety and Health Act, and the Industrial Safety and Health Act (see Supreme Court Decision 91Do2642, Dec. 10, 191). In light of the above legal principle, the defendant did not take such preventive measures as the main use of concrete block for the purpose of preventing industrial accidents, not the defendant's main use of concrete block for the purpose of using the specific block for the purpose of preventing industrial accidents, in light of the above legal principle, the defendant's main duty of care and occupational duty are identical to two occupational duties and occupational duties (see Supreme Court Decision 91Do2642, Dec. 10, 191).