The judgment below

The part against the Defendants is reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for four months and by imprisonment for six months.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In the case of Defendant A, the location of the instant accident was the part of the elevator fee, and as at the time of the accident, Defendant A, who was awarded a subcontract for the prompt construction of building outer walls by Co-Defendant C Co-Defendant C (hereinafter “C”), was not obliged to install protective facilities, such as safety rail, in the elevator fee part, the place of the said accident.

2) In the case of Defendant B, the instant construction work was conducted by X-A’s license lending, and the actual manager of the instant construction site is the above X-X.

In addition, since Defendant B was hospitalized at the time of the instant accident, it was impossible for the victim to install a safety facility or to properly wear a safety mother.

3) Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendants guilty of the facts charged in the instant case. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine and misunderstanding of facts.

B. The sentence of the lower court (Defendant A: imprisonment with prison labor for 4 months, and Defendant B: imprisonment with prison labor for 6 months) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the Defendants’ assertion of misunderstanding of the facts and legal principles, the court below rejected the Defendants’ assertion in detail under the title “the grounds for conviction” in the judgment of the court below, which states that the Defendants’ assertion and judgment are “the grounds for conviction.” The judgment of the court below is just and acceptable in light of the comparison of the above judgment of the court below with the records.

B. A witness G at the trial at the time stated to the effect that the actual manager at the construction site at the time was X. However, the above Defendant B also instructed some of his duties by telephone conversations at the time of his hospitalization, and testified that he was aware of the content of his work and the progress of the construction work, and the status of Defendant B still as the general manager at the time of the accident as determined by the lower court.