The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The gist of the grounds for appeal is that the Defendant did not have a relationship between E and D with the business owner.

E and D are not aware of the receipt of money or valuables in return for time outside the place of business, or there was no implied negligence. The gas leakage accident could not be predicted, and there was no occupational negligence.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found all of the charges of this case guilty is erroneous in misconception of facts.

On the other hand, the punishment (fine 5 million won) imposed by the court below on the defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The lower court convicted each of the instant charges on the ground that “E and D are multi-party employees in a subordinate relationship with the Defendant on the grounds of the detailed circumstances indicated in the third part of the judgment’s “reasons for recognition of a crime of oil leakage”, on the ground that “E and D” was aware of the fact that E and D were engaged in the so-called “diet business” in which money and valuables were received in return for time outside the place of business. The Defendant was aware of the fact that the Defendant, as Cda business owner, was negligent in the course of business not taking necessary measures to prevent the risk of explosion due to gas leakage.”

In full view of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, a thorough examination of the records of this case is justified, and there is no error of law by mistake of facts alleged by the defendant.

B. It appears that not only the defendant's negligence but also the gas supplier's negligence is involved in the crime of injury by occupational negligence in the instant case as to whether unfair sentencing is unfair, and that the defendant does not seem to have actively directed E and D the ticket business, and that the defendant does not have a criminal record of a criminal record or a bodily injury exceeding the

However, it is difficult for the defendant to understand the crime of this case by the defense that the defendant denies and does not reflect the crime of this case, and two victims.