The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that, among the rains installed on the third floor outer wall of the construction site of the "Seoul-si D Building" (hereinafter "the construction site of this case") where the Defendant had been employed as a worker, it is confirmed that the sprink with a chain of 1m a meter from among the rains installed on the outer wall of the third floor of the construction site of this case (hereinafter "the construction site of this case"), C also stated in the police that "the hack pipe was separated from the string pipe who had been employed on the third floor of the outer wall of the building at the time, and the hack pipe was removed from

“A statement made to the effect that the Defendant made a statement to the effect that it is essential for the Defendant to cut off the plate to another place and that the decline pipe can be separated by the vibration generated in the process. In such a case, the Defendant has the duty of due care to examine whether the decline pipe was completely fixed, and the Defendant’s failure to do so was recognized. According to the witness I’s statement made by the lower court, the separated decline pipe, which was cut off by the witness I’s statement, was cut off to a steel company rather than a single, so the Defendant was sufficiently aware of it if he exercised due care (the Defendant was under way from the fifth floor of the building to the lower court, and even if there was a decline in the upper part of the Defendant’s building, the Defendant could have considered the fixed condition, and even if there was a lack of the control pipe in the lower court’s statement made by the witness G, Article 6(6) of the Rules and the Rules on Industrial Safety and Health should not be accepted, and thus, Article 7(6) of the above Rules and the Rules on Industrial Safety and Health should not be accepted.