The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous in the misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles as follows.

A. The Defendant Company is not the business owner of the “Removal of the post-old Power Generation Construction Works” (hereinafter “Removal Work”) conducted in Goyang-gu Seoul Metropolitan City D located in Goyang-gu, and the Defendant Company is not an employee or employee of the Defendant Company, and only I ordered the removal work of this case by an individual. Thus, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant Company’s violation was related to the Defendant Company’s business.

Nevertheless, the lower court acknowledged the instant facts charged on the premise that the Defendant Company was the business owner of the removal of the instant case.

B. A household I entered into a contract for the instant removal works in the name of the Defendant Company with H Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “H”).

Even if the Defendant Company did not grant the right of representation to the I regarding the conclusion of the contract, and therefore, it could not at all know the fact that I ordered the removal of the instant case. Therefore, under such circumstances, the Defendant Company cannot be punished under Article 71 of the Industrial Safety and Health Act solely on the ground that “the act of entering into a contract with H as if the Defendant Company was delegated by the I Company” was not prevented (the foregoing provision applies only to cases where a person who failed to take preventive measures is deemed responsible for the management and supervision of the corporation against a person who failed to comply with the risk).

A. Article 71 of the Industrial Safety and Health Act provides that if a representative, agent, employee, or employee of a corporation violates the duty to take measures necessary to prevent risks under Article 23(1) of the same Act and causes the death of a worker, not only shall such violator be punished, but also the corporation shall be punished by a fine: Provided, That where the corporation has not been negligent in giving due attention and supervision concerning the relevant duties to prevent such violation, the above two punishment provisions shall not apply to the corporation.