The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

A violation of Articles 66-2 and 23(3) of the Industrial Safety and Health Act (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) against a business owner shall be established only where a business owner instructs the business owner to take safety measures prescribed in Article 23(3) of the Act (hereinafter referred to as the “Rules”) in relation to his/her workplace operated by him/her, without taking safety measures prescribed in the Rules on the Standards for Industrial Safety and Health (hereinafter referred to as the “Rules”), or neglects to take such measures despite being aware of the fact that the business is being performed without taking safety measures.

(2) In light of the aforementioned legal principles, the lower court found the Defendant guilty on the ground that the Defendant failed to meet the standards set forth in Article 23(3) of the Rules, such as where he/she was awarded a contract for the part of the construction work of multi-family house in this case, and where he/she was installed between the rain and the safety distress, that the part of the construction work of the mold, among the construction work of the multi-family house in this case, was installed by another company, and the Defendant did not meet the standards set forth in Article 13 of the Rules, such as where only the upper rail is installed without a simple middle rail line, so long as it did not meet the requirements set forth in Article 23(3) of the Act, the Defendant, as the business owner, required safety measures in conformity with the standards set forth in the Rules, or required safety measures on his/her own, to prevent the falling risk of his/her employee’s work under Article 23(3) of the Act, even if the Defendant was obligated to take safety measures on his/her own, but failed to maintain the judgment of the victim’s death.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the aforementioned legal principles and evidence duly admitted, the lower court’s judgment is logical and conclusive as stated in the grounds of appeal.