The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Fact-misunderstanding and legal principles: (a) In order to punish a business owner as a violation of Article 67 subparag. 1 of the Industrial Safety and Health Act, the business owner should be proven to have instructed the business owner to perform work without taking safety measures or left the state of such act; (b) the lower court did not make any judgment as to whether the Defendant, who is the business owner, committed the above act; (c) the instant accident was combined with the negligence of A, a manager in charge of interest management at the site where the Defendant belongs, a supervisor in charge of the management and supervision, and employees at the loading and unloading sites; and (c) the Defendant was unable to predict it; and (d) the Defendant fulfilled his duty to take safety measures prescribed in the occupational safety and health laws and regulations, the lower court did not bear the responsibility for the violation of the Industrial Safety

B. In light of the various sentencing conditions of this case, the lower court’s punishment against the Defendant (one million won in penalty) is too unreasonable.

2. We examine the judgment of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles. ① The reasons alleged by the Defendant are as follows: “Where a business owner is punished for a violation of Article 67 subparag. 1 and Article 23 subparag. 3 of the Industrial Safety and Health Act.” In other words, the facts charged in this case constitute a crime of violation of the business owner’s own violation. The facts charged in this case are punished for a violation of both punishment provisions under Article 71 of the Industrial Safety and Health Act against the Defendant, a corporation, who is not the Defendant himself/herself, based on the premise that A, who is not his/her employee, committed a violation of the Industrial Safety and Health Act. As such, the legal principles asserted by the Defendant are not applicable to this case. ② The punishment for a corporation, which is the business owner by applying both punishment provisions as above,