All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the grounds of appeal on the violation of the Industrial Safety and Health Act by Defendant A and Defendant H Company

A. A business owner who engages in the entire project, other than a part of the project performed at the same place, under a contract, is not a business owner obligated to perform the obligations under Article 29(3) of the former Industrial Safety and Health Act (amended by Act No. 16272, Jan. 15, 2019; hereinafter the same shall apply), but a business owner who directly takes charge of part of the construction work or process at the same place is obligated to take measures for preventing industrial accidents as prescribed in the above provision (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Do4802, Oct. 28, 2005). If the business owner violates Articles 66-2 and 24(1) of the Act against the business owner without being able to take measures for preventing industrial accidents at the same place, it is found that the business owner did not take measures for health and safety at the same place of business under Article 29(3) of the Act, and that the business owner did not take measures for preventing industrial accidents without being determined by the Supreme Court.