The judgment below

Of them, the part against Defendant A shall be reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment for eight months.

, however, the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact, misunderstanding the legal principles and misunderstanding the deceased J (hereinafter “the deceased”) are formally workers of Defendant B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant B”), but in fact, as the so-called “the so-called “the so-called “the president”, Defendant B did not undergo the direction or supervision of Defendant B, and carried out the work under the direction of the elevator repair directly from Defendant B (hereinafter “Omat”).

Even in the case of the F Hospital in Gwangjin-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City “Croping Corporation for Elevators 2 and 4 main equipment” (hereinafter “instant repair work”), the Deceased was directly instructed by the Ors H, and Defendant B did not know the fact that the instant construction work was done after the accident and before the contact was made.

1) The requirements for the crime of violation of Article 23(1) of the Industrial Safety and Health Act are the requirements for establishment, and the “order” is the requirements for leaving alone. Defendant A could not take measures as indicated in the facts charged (such as taking necessary measures to prevent risks, such as suspending the operation of the relevant machine and appointing a person who directs work, and conducting work under the direction).

2) The Deceased is a so-called so-called “small president” and is in a practical independent business position, and thus does not constitute Defendant B’s workers.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, on the part of the Defendants.

B. The sentence sentenced by the court below to the defendants (Defendant A: imprisonment of August, suspended sentence of two years, Defendant B: fine of five million won) is too unreasonable.

2. The judgment ex officio (the part of defendant A) is examined ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant A, and the prosecutor is the same as this court.