All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant B 1) The Defendant was not a upper part of the collapsed reinforced wall (hereinafter “the instant reinforced wall”) but a refluor of the refluence inside the existing stone embankment. As such, there was no error in the Defendant’s installation of a refluor on the refluent earth retaining wall that was completely constructed.

2) Even if there is any negligence on the part of the Defendant.

Even if the retaining wall of the instant reinforcement is not due to the upstream of the above digging hole, but due to the demolition of aggregate between the retaining wall of the reinforcement and the existing stone embankment by the method of unreasonable construction between A and the victim H, it is collapsed. Thus, there is no relation between the negligence of the defendant and the result of the victims' death or injury.

B. The re-installation of the retaining wall of the instant reinforced C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant construction”) was individually carried out by Defendant C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Co., Ltd.”) regardless of the Defendant Co., Ltd.’s company (hereinafter “Defendant Co., Ltd.”)’s employee H, and thus, the Defendant Co., Ltd., who is not the sewage supplier of the instant construction, did not constitute a violation of the Industrial Safety and Health Act.

2. Determination

A. As to Defendant B’s assertion, the lower court rejected the aforementioned assertion in detail, on the grounds that the Defendant asserted the same purport at the lower court, and on the grounds that the judgment on the “Defendant B” portion of the “Judgment on the argument of Defendant B, C, and their defense counsel” was written.

2) In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged in accordance with the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below and the court below's decision, the court below's decision that found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is justified and there is no error of law as pointed out by the defendant.

(1) A and the defendant are in danger of collapse of a retaining wall of the instant reinforced soil when they are located above the retaining wall of the instant reinforced soil.