All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Considering the legislative intent of the Occupational Safety and Health Act, which was enacted for the safety of workers in a direct labor relationship, the purport of the grounds for appeal is that Defendant D Limited Liability Company (hereinafter “Defendant D”) cannot be held liable for the result of the accident of workers who are not employees belonging to the same company (hereinafter “Defendant D”).

In addition, the instant accident was caused by the personal negligence of R, which is the employee of Defendant D, and the Defendants did not constitute an accident in violation of safety measures as “business owner”.

Nevertheless, the lower court convicted the Defendants of the facts charged in this case erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the duty to take safety measures under the Occupational Safety and Health Act.

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is a corporation established for the purpose of manufacturing and installing elevators with an office in Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul National University N, and repair business, who subcontracted the installation of elevators among the new construction works of the Seoul National University MG MG, and Defendant C, as the team leader of the "TFT Team" (TFT) established for repair and inspection of elevators inside the Seoul National University MG, and the person in charge of safety and health management at the scene of repair and inspection.

1) At around 11:00 on September 11, 2013, Defendant C, at the site of the construction of a new construction project at the Seoul National University M&C, ordered workers R, affiliated with Defendant D’s “TFT Team” (TFT) to repair and examine elevators 1. In such a case, Defendant C, who is a person in charge of safety and health management, appointed a person in charge of the operation, carried out the operation under the direction of the person in charge of the operation, and took necessary measures to prevent industrial accidents, such as prohibiting entry of persons other than relevant workers. However, Defendant D did not take such measures.