The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendants are innocent.

1. The facts charged in this case

A. On July 26, 2014, Defendant A was awarded a contract for the repair business of F (i.e., 1,479 tons, 23 passengers on board, hereinafter “instant vessel”) from a company engaging in repair business of vessels with 46 full-time workers, as the representative director of E, and (ii) around July 26, 2014.

A business owner shall take measures to prevent industrial accidents, such as storing dangerous substances in a separate place outside the workplace, etc.

Nevertheless, during the period from July 26, 2014 to July 31, 2014, the Defendant repaired the instant vessel at the ship repair work site of a stock company B located in E, and had G and H, etc. work as a person who works for the instant company B and H, etc. to perform the repair-related work on the instant vessel, while the Defendant stored 14 containers where the ambane (in the case of contact with the human body with the nitrogen and hydrogen compounds, the ambrys may cause serious images when they come into contact with the human body) is stored in the room for the instant vessel disposal (in the place where the captured ambats are moved to the fish hold through a consortium belt).

B. As described in the above A, the representative director of the Defendant B, Defendant B, was repairing the instant vessel from July 26, 2014 to July 31, 2014 with respect to the Defendant’s business and had G and H, etc. conduct the work related to the repair of the instant vessel in a state where 14 containers stored in the ship disposal room of the instant vessel, which are dangerous substances, were stored in the ship disposal room.

2. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the aforementioned facts charged by taking account of the admitted evidence.

3. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the Defendants ordered work without taking safety measures, or work without taking safety measures.