The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The gist of the grounds for appeal is that the defendant, alone, instructed E to stop the replacement of the mother and wait for the defendant, but E has caused the instant accident while engaging in the mixed work in violation of this provision. Therefore, the defendant is not negligent in violating the duty of care for the instant accident.

2. Determination

A. E consistently from the investigative agency to the court of the court of the court below, “The defendant instructed the confirmation of whether the number of the spare mother and the broken mother is the same as that of the spare mother and the broken mother, and only the defendant was aware of the defect and did not mislead the defendant, thereby making it inevitable to replace the married person.

The defendant made a statement to the effect that he would act for himself, and even if he thought that E would act for himself, E would have good assistance to the defendant while having already been given work instructions from the defendant, and even if not, he would have been aware of his work as his own duties and went to work for him.

B. Even if the Defendant did not engage in the work of replacing a mixed body, and ordered the Defendant to wait, the instant public bath is a business establishment used by the public, and there are many risk factors that threaten the safety of users due to various facilities related to electricity. As such, the Defendant, who is the operator of a public bath, has a high level of occupational duty to forecast and take safety measures in advance in the management of the public bath. As such, the Defendant, as the instant case, has a high level of occupational duty to take measures to prevent the danger factors in the management of the public bath, and upon replacement of a large-scale electrical motor vehicle, should take measures to block electricity, notify the users of the measures to take prior measures to evacuate, and then instruct the users to perform the work without any safety measures, but the Defendant, who is qualified under the Electric Business Act, was instructed to perform the mixed work, or