All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A’s assertion of mistake of facts is merely a substitute for safety education to the employees, with the direction of B, a person in charge of the field of appointment, on the ground that Defendant A was the person with experience in appointment.

as it cannot be said that there is occupational negligence.

subsection (b) of this section.

Even if there was a breach of duty of care in duty

Even if the accident of this case is a cause for the case, since the accident of this case does not comply with the safety rules to be observed by the victim as the victim did not comply with the safety rules to be observed by the victim, it is not related to the defendant's breach of duty of care and the occurrence of the accident of this case.

B. Each sentence (Defendant A: a fine of KRW 5 million, Defendant C: a fine of KRW 7 million) that the court below sentenced the Defendants to the unjust argument of sentencing by the Defendants is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the defendant A's assertion of mistake of facts, the court below also made the same assertion as the grounds for appeal in this part. The court below acknowledged the following circumstances based on the investigated evidence: (i) the defendant A is in charge of the management of employees, facility management, safety education, etc. because he is in the position of the field manager at H, a two factories operated by the corporation C, which is a second factory; (ii) the workr must directly put the styren in the styrenization in the styrenization machine; (iii) there is no separate cover; (iv) the styrenrization is in direct contact on the date of the styren; and (v) the above styrenrization is in the absence of a separate safety device; and (iv) the defendant A takes approximately 20 seconds until the actual operation of the styren is suspended; and (iv) the occurrence of this case.