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

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of legal principles) is that measures such as the preparation of safety rules to prevent accidents such as this case, the installation of accident prevention facilities, the placement of a conductor, etc. shall not be individually performed at the relevant workplace or the department to which the workplace belongs, but shall be uniformly directed and supervised at the corporate level. Thus, the failure of Defendant A’s occupational care is denied in relation to occupational and practical injury and occupational injury, or the violation of the Industrial Safety and Health Act cannot be denied.

2. The lower court rendered a not guilty verdict on this part of the facts charged, while sufficiently explaining the grounds for the issue of occupational and practical ideas.

Examining the above judgment of the court below in light of the relevant legal principles, the judgment is just, and there is no error by misapprehending the legal principles which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

Therefore, the prosecutor's assertion on this part is not accepted.

3. Determination as to the violation of the Industrial Safety and Health Act

A. The crime of violation of Article 66-2, Article 67 subparag. 1, and Article 23(1) through (3) of the Industrial Safety and Health Act against a business owner is established only when the business owner instructs the place of business he/she operates to take safety measures as prescribed by the regulations, or neglects to take safety measures as prescribed by Article 23(1) through (3) of the Act, while he/she is aware of the fact that the above work was performed without taking safety measures, and thus, the act of violation is established only when the business owner is deemed to have been performed by the business owner. However, it is not established only with the fact that the safety measures required for the above dangerous work was conducted without taking such measures at the place of business of the business owner (see Supreme Court Decisions 2006Do874, Mar. 29, 2007; 2009Do12515, Sept. 29, 2011).