All appeals filed by the prosecutor against the Defendants are dismissed.

1. The gist of the grounds for appeal is that the lower court’s punishment (i.e., a fine of three million won: Defendant B); and (ii) Defendant D’s fine of one million won is too uneased and unreasonable.

2. The crime of this case was committed by the Defendants, who were the site directors of the ordering company and the executing company of the instant construction, and the Defendants, who were the site directors of the instant construction, assembled the first floor and slabs, and omitted the concrete-type snowing procedure, and immediately conducted the construction in the order of assembling the beams and slabs on the second floor and immediately, caused the damage to the victims, due to the collapse of the slabs and beams, which were put on the 1st and second floor government with the collapse of the columns.

Since the above Defendants violated their duty of care as seen above resulted in a relatively serious injury to the victims, there is a need for strict punishment corresponding thereto.

However, under the circumstances where the Defendants were aware of the crime of this case and against the mistake, they agreed with the victimJ, endeavored to recover the damage of the victim I, Defendant D voluntarily resigned from the company after the accident of this case, Defendant B had a mother and any other dependent family member, and Defendant B wanted the wife of the victim I in the case of the crime of this case.

In addition, Defendant B has no record of crime within the past 20 years, and Defendant D is an initial offender.

In addition, taking into account all the sentencing conditions shown in the records and arguments of the instant accident, such as the background of the instant accident, the lower court’s judgment exceeded the reasonable bounds of discretion.

There is no circumstance that the lower court’s maintenance of the determination of sentencing is unfair (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). Accordingly, the Prosecutor’s unreasonable assertion of sentencing is rejected.

3. In conclusion, since each appeal against the Defendants by the prosecutor is without merit, all of the appeals are dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so ordered as per Disposition.