All judgment of the court below shall be reversed.

Defendant

A Imprisonment for six months, Defendant E shall be punished by a fine of five million won, and Defendant B.

Summary of Reasons for appeal

A. In the construction site of this case by misapprehending legal principles, the construction site of this case is not a structure capable of installing a railing safety.

Therefore, Defendant A and E are not obliged to install a safety rail.

B. The sentence of the lower court (Defendant A: 6 months of imprisonment with prison labor and 2 years of suspended execution, Defendant E: fine of 5 million won, and Defendant B: fine of 8 million won) is too unreasonable.

The prosecutor of the judgment ex officio applied for the amendment of the indictment with the contents that delete part of the facts charged in this case from the trial at the trial at the trial at the court at the above time, and since this court permitted it, the judgment of the court below was no longer maintained (as the defendants recognized all the facts charged changed at the second trial at the trial at the trial at the above trial at the court at the court at the above time, the defendants' misunderstanding of legal principles and misunderstanding of sentencing and misunderstanding of sentencing are not judged separately). 3. Accordingly, the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act

【Grounds for the judgment in its entirety] The facts constituting a crime and summary of evidence recognized by the court in question are as follows: the facts constituting a crime and summary of evidence acknowledged by the court in question are as follows; the facts constituting a crime and summary of evidence from No. 18 to No. 3; the facts constituting a crime from No. 4 to No. 3; and the facts constituting a crime from No. 2 to No. 19 to No. 2; and the facts constituting a crime from No. 13 to No. 19 are as stated in each corresponding column of the judgment of the court below. Thus, they are

In such cases, Defendant A and Safety Management Officer of the Corporation provided employees with safety appearance and safety belts to wear them, and ② There was a duty of safety measures and duty of care under the Industrial Safety and Health Act to install safety belts and life jackets in the monthly vision.

Nevertheless, Defendant A and E did not neglect this and did not pay the safety cap and safety belt to the victim, and the safety belt in the calendar.