The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 10,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal by defense counsel;

A. Fact-misunderstanding or misapprehension of legal principles that a person, who gets off the presses after cutting off the presses in favor of the Defendant, can not be deemed as a lawful act in the case of carrying the presses, and there is no objective ground to deem that the Defendant’s above act was the presses. At the time of the Defendant’s cutting off the presses, there was no place around the presses, and the employees E of the transportation company, who were not related to the transportation of presses, arbitrarily engaged in any work, such as cutting off the presses, without permission, goes beyond the presses by the employees E of the transportation company, who were not related to the transportation of presses, to the point of the presses, and thus, there was a negligence on the Defendant, who was not able to predict such situation.

In light of the fact that it is unreasonable to hold the Defendant liable for breach of the duty of care as it was given to the person in charge of supervising the work of dismantling presses and cutting off the presses and cutting off the presses and cutting off the presses, the failure to take safety measures to cut off the presses and block access by others, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant suffered injury, such as the charge, as stated in the facts charged, due to an accident using the presses, is attributable to the negligence that the Defendant neglected to exercise the duty of care.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment, by finding the Defendant guilty of the facts charged.

B. The sentence of the court below, which sentenced two years of suspended sentence to the defendant for eight months of imprisonment without prison labor, is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In the lower court’s determination as to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the Defendant did not have the Defendant set the string of the string, as alleged in the grounds of appeal, but the victim E was not in the vicinity at the time of the string of the string of the string of the string.