All appeals filed by prosecutors and defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The sentence sentenced by the prosecutor (eight months of each imprisonment without prison labor, two years of suspended execution) is too unhued and unfair.

B. Defendant 1) misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles are not workers employed by the Defendants, but the Defendants did not specifically direct and supervise the individual work of the victims. Thus, the Defendants did not have a duty of care to take safety measures necessary for the prevention of accidents in relation to the instant accident. Nevertheless, the lower court’s judgment which found the Defendants guilty of the instant facts charged on the ground that they had such duty of care, erred by misapprehending the legal principles, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. 2) The above sentence imposed by the lower court of unreasonable sentencing is too unreasonable

2. Determination on the grounds for appeal

A. In full view of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the lower court’s duly admitted and investigated evidence, it is reasonable to deem that the instant accident was caused by negligence in breach of the duty of care to prevent and prevent the risks of the Defendants’ accident. Therefore, the lower court’s judgment convicting the Defendants of the facts charged of this case is justifiable, and there is no error of misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

Therefore, we cannot accept this part of the Defendants’ assertion.

(1) In principle, a contractor has not been obliged to take safety measures necessary for the prevention of accidents in connection with the contractor's work, but a contractor is also obligated to manage and supervise the contractor's work in accordance with statutes, or the contractor has specifically ordered and supervised the contractor's work or individual work.