The judgment below

Among them, the part against Defendant A and C corporation shall be reversed.

Defendant

A and C Co., Ltd. shall be punished by each fine 5.

1. Summary of the Defendants’ appeal

A. Fact-misunderstanding or misunderstanding of legal principles (part 1 of violation of the Industrial Safety and Health Act) (1) F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “F”), upon receiving KRW 2,846,698,264 as management expenses for occupational safety and health, upon receiving KRW 2,84,69,264 as a contract for the new construction of H apartment (hereinafter “the instant apartment”) from the Mutual-Aid Association of Military Personnel, the ordering person, and thus, the Defendant C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C”) who subcontracted the steel reinforced concrete construction as management expenses for occupational safety and health, is obliged to bear the responsibility under the Industrial Safety and Health Act on death and bodily injury caused by safety.

Therefore, Defendant C and Defendant C’s safety management entity, a subcontractor, did not violate the duty to take safety measures under the Industrial Safety and Health Act.

(2) Q is a safety manager of the F, and is not an employee of the Defendant C, and is not a violation of the Industrial Safety and Health Act concerning Defendant A and Q.

(3) Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts charged against the Defendants on the violation of the Industrial Safety and Health Act or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the business owner’s duty to take safety measures under the Industrial Safety and Health Act, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. In light of the fact that: (a) Defendant C was unable to receive management expenses for occupational health and safety from F; and (b) Defendant C was confirmed as a violation of the Industrial Safety and Health Act against Defendant C and was subject to an administrative disposition, such as the suspension of business, etc., the number of employees with 4,000 should be in office; (c) the sentence of the lower court imposing a fine of KRW 5 million on Defendant A and C; and (d) KRW 2 million on Defendant B is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Determination on the assertion of misunderstanding the facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine (1) that did not receive management expenses of occupational safety and health under the statutes (A).