All appeals filed by the Defendants and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendants 1) E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Co., Ltd.”) constituted a joint supply body with C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C”) and jointly awarded a contract for the elevator replacement work (hereinafter “instant construction work”) recorded in the facts constituting the crime indicated in the judgment below. Since Defendant Co., Ltd is not divided into part of the instant construction work and subcontracted it to C, it does not constitute a business owner who takes measures to prevent industrial accidents as prescribed in Article 29(3) of the Industrial Safety and Health Act.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts and misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, by misapprehending the legal principles, which found the Defendant Company to have subcontracted part of the instant construction to C.

(B) Article 29(1) of the Industrial Safety and Health Act provides that even if the Defendant Company subcontracted part of the instant construction work to C, “the business owner shall take measures to prevent industrial accidents that may arise when the employees employed by him/her and his/her employees work together at the same place,” and Article 29(3) of the same Act provides that “the business owner under paragraph (1) shall take measures to prevent industrial accidents.” Thus, in order for the Defendant Company to be a business owner who is obligated to take measures to prevent industrial accidents under paragraph (3) of the same Article, the employees employed by him/her and his/her employees must work at the same place. In this case, the employees employed by the Defendant Company did not work at the same place as the employees employed by him/her, and thus, the Defendant Company does not fall under the said business owner, and thus, does not fall under the safety and health facilities at a place where the risk of fall or falling is