The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

At the time of the instant accident, persons in general charge of safety management and supervisor of the instant company were designated respectively at the time of the instant accident, and the Defendant was not in the position of assisting the business owner or person in charge of safety management and advising and guiding the supervisor with respect to technical matters concerning safety as a safety manager at the instant site and did not have a duty of care to take necessary measures for safety.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty on the part of the defendant who has such duty of care and violated such duty of care is erroneous and erroneous.

2. Determination on the grounds for appeal

A. In the lower court’s determination, the Defendant asserted the same purport as the above grounds for appeal. The lower court, based on the evidence duly adopted and examined, found the following circumstances, namely, ① the Defendant was employed as an employee belonging to the safety department of DD Limited Liability Company (hereinafter “instant company”) around November 22, 2016, and served until February 28, 2019. The instant company, around November 23, 2016, designated the Defendant as a safety manager pursuant to Article 15 of the former Industrial Safety and Health Act (amended by Act No. 16272, Jan. 15, 2019; hereinafter “former Act”). ② In doing water pipeline work up to sixth floor of the instant building, it was unreasonable to install water pipe pipes immediately after securing working space, but it was difficult to install the water pipeline from the victim’s 7th floor of the instant building to the extent that the water pipeline was narrow to the extent of the victim’s damage.