The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor to the gist of the grounds for appeal, the court below acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged in this case, although the Defendant neglected to take safety measures and caused the death of the victim, although the Defendant could have neglected to take such measures, and the court below acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged. In so doing, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles and misconception

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged of this case 1) D is the person in charge of the safety management of G corporation, as the representative director of the above G corporation, who is the representative director of the G corporation, and I is the employee of the J corporation who was requested from the F corporation to perform the work of loading and unloading cargo at the cargo hold No. 3, and the defendant is the first class mate of E, the person in charge of safety management of E in the loading and unloading of cargo in the ship.

E, around 12:00 on December 25, 2014, entered the 7555 luminous port container 20 lines, and began to load ethyl pipes, etc., and the Defendant was the watchkeeping officer on duty at night on December 27, 2014 when loading of cargo at night.

In the event of loading and unloading of a cargo on a ship, the shipper is required to wear a safety cap and safety belt in the mining of the cargo hold (referring to a shooting wall installed on the cover of the cargo hold, and the height from the floor of E to the mining upper part) to the mining of the cargo hold by hanging the work tools, etc., and as such, in the event that the cmining of the above cmining of the cargo has a risk of falling, the workman is required to wear a safety cap and safety belt.

2) D, I, and the Defendant’s joint crimes (A) D enter into and departing from the 20 line of light-going container wharf No. 20 on December 25, 2014.