All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant C1) misunderstanding of facts falls under the charges of organizing a consultative body on safety and health, which is the duty provided for in each subparagraph of Article 29(2) of the Industrial Safety and Health Act, on the premise that Defendant C violated the above duty of care and thus caused the death of the victim and the part concerning the charges of establishing a consultative body on safety and health, which is the duty provided for in each subparagraph of Article 29(2) of the Industrial Safety and Health Act, under the premise that Defendant D falls under the above subcontractor. Nevertheless, the lower court convicted Defendant C of this part of the charges, which is erroneous in its judgment, on the grounds that there is no proof of criminal facts.

B. Defendant D1 cannot be deemed as a contracting business owner under Article 29(3) and (1) of the Industrial Safety and Health Act as stated in the mistake of facts. As such, Defendant D cannot be deemed as a contracting business owner under Article 29(3) and (1) of the same Act, the part of the facts charged that Defendant D violated the above provision should be acquitted, but the lower court convicted Defendant D of the above facts charged. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending facts. 2) In so determining, the lower court’s sentence of unfair sentencing (a fine of KRW 4 million)

C. Defendant E’s punishment (2 million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

Defendant

F1 M. M. M. misunderstanding of facts D is a new apartment construction work.