The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (based on factual errors and misapprehension of legal principles) is that the Defendant, as the lessor of packing construction equipment, performed small packaging construction works under B’s direction and supervision upon the illegal request of B (hereinafter “B”), and thus, the Defendant is not obligated to take safety measures for the prevention of danger as the business owner under the Occupational Safety and Health Act.

2. The judgment of the court below is based on the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, that is, the business owner's duty to take safety measures under the Occupational Safety and Health Act is "business owner" using "worker" under Article 2 (1) 1 of the Labor Standards Act (Article 2 subparagraph 3 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act); the defendant is a personal business owner holding construction equipment, etc. necessary for packing containers; the defendant is awarded a subcontract for 4,785,00 won (excluding value-added tax) among the new construction works of D factories contracted by Eul Co., Ltd. (hereinafter "D"), and the defendant is obligated to take safety measures against the above employees, taking into account that two construction equipment operating the above construction equipment and four workers, including P workers who were affected by the disaster on the day of the instant case, and several employees, including B at the construction site at the time of the instant construction site, are working at the construction site, but the defendant is obligated to take safety measures against the above employees.

Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

3. As the appeal by the defendant is groundless, Article 364 of the Criminal Procedure Act is not reasonable.