All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant A is merely an employee in G Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “G”), and the principal does not receive a subcontract for the instant apartment-building external wall painting as an independent business owner.

B) At the time of the instant accident, the deceased H (hereinafter “H”) was wearing a safety belt owned by the principal at the time of the instant accident, and the Defendant A inspected relevant equipment, such as the calendar prior to H’s commencement of work. As such, Defendant A performed the duty to take safety measures as stipulated in relevant statutes, such as the Industrial Safety and Health Act.

다) 이 사건 사고 당시 H 스스로 안전 대의 죔 줄을 풀고 작업을 하였다.

Unless a worker uses protective outfits worn in violation of the employer's instructions, he/she shall not be recognized as a violation of the employer's duty.

D) Even if Defendant A violated the duty of inspection and repair

However, the direct cause of the instant accident is in the defective construction of cleaning glass, and if H complies with the safety rules, the instant crash accident could not occur.

In other words, since the accident of this case is not caused by Defendant A’s breach of duty, it is not recognized that there is considerable causal relation between Defendant A’s act and H’s death.

E) Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found all of the charges of this case guilty is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts and legal principles.

2) The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendants (Defendant A: 6 months of imprisonment, 2 years of suspended sentence, 4 months of suspended sentence, 1 year of suspended sentence, and 7 million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B’s assertion 1) The lower court is a violation of law that Defendant B did not have the management staff at the instant site and did not have the employees receive safety education.