Defendants are not guilty

1. The prosecutor of the facts charged, without applying Article 71 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act to Defendant A without applying Article 71 of the same Act, filed a public prosecution against Defendant B with respect to the rate under Articles 68 subparag. 2 and 70 of the same Act. However, Articles 68 subparag. 2 and 70 of the same Act are subject to the application of Articles 68 subparag. 2 and 70 of the same Act, and where an employee or employee of the business owner, not the business owner, commits a violation under the above provisions, the main sentence of Article 71 of the same Act becomes the basis for punishing employees or employees (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Do7834, Sept. 9, 2010). It is obvious that Defendant B is the employee or employee of Defendant B, and Defendant A is the person who is the employee or employee of Defendant B, and it is pointed out that the facts charged and applicable provisions of Acts

Defendant

A as a vice head of a corporation B, a person in charge of safety and health of the following new construction, and Defendant B is a corporation with the purpose of construction business.

Defendant

B Co., Ltd. was the owner of the E-factory construction in Sinpo City on March 13, 2014, which was a part of the new construction work, and was awarded a contract to F Co., Ltd. with the construction cost of KRW 77 million.

1. Where the workers employed by the contractor do work at a place where material objects are removed or at risk of flying off, Defendant A’s business owner shall take measures to prevent industrial accidents, such as the installation of safety and health facilities;

In addition, the safety and health management, such as the organization and operation of a consultative body on safety and health, and a circuit inspection on the workplace, in order to prevent industrial accidents that may occur when workers employed by them and their employees work for them at the same place.