All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In the misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the director did not inform the Defendants of the risk of work carried out by the Defendants as a worker in daily work, and the Defendants were working by using the entire prevention tools given according to the given instructions.

In this situation, the defendants have the duty to prevent fire using the safety goods of at least the given Dog or more, recognizing their entire work process and the risk of work.

Although it cannot be seen, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby convicting the instant facts charged.

B. The sentence of the lower court (a fine of KRW 2.5 million for each of the 2.5 million) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The judgment of the court below as to the assertion of misapprehension of the legal principles is based on the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below, i.e., ① the Defendants conducted a team with the co-defendant A at the site of the court below, ② the Defendants obstructed the use of asbestos so that the flames, etc. do not run away from the adjacent to them, and if the flames are cut off, the Defendants were in the role of extinguishing it by using fire extinguishers, water pipes, etc. ② the Defendant B was in the vicinity of the asbestos ex- ordinance at the time of the use of the marry, and Defendant C was in the vicinity of the mar, and Defendant C got off the surrounding area while waiting for the mar, and was in the need of carrying out safety education at the time of the operation, ③ the Defendants and A did not take measures to prevent the scattering of asbestos from spunching at the time of the operation, ④ the Defendants and A were in the presence of asbestos at the time of the operation, and the following measures were not taken to prevent the scattering of asbestos at the site.