The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Since misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles did not instruct work without taking safety measures as stipulated in Article 23(3) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act or neglect it with knowledge of the fact that work is performed without taking such safety measures, the Defendant’s act does not constitute an element of Article 66-2 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one year of imprisonment, two years of suspended sentence) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The defendant asserted that the judgment of the court below is identical to the above, and the court below rejected the above argument in detail in the "decision on the defendant A's argument" column. In light of the records, the judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and there is no error of misconception of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles as alleged by the defendant. Thus, the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles is without merit.

B. The Defendant had no record of criminal punishment or a fine heavier than that of a fine before the judgment on the assertion of unfair sentencing, and the fact that the Defendant deposited KRW 10 million for the heir of M who died of the instant accident, etc. is favorable to the Defendant.

On the other hand, the crime of this case did not take necessary measures to prevent danger to a worker M while having a worker M perform work without having the defendant take measures to prevent the risk, and the crime of this case did not be less than that of M M, which led to the death. In this case, serious results arise that the worker M dies due to the accident of this case, and the obligation to take measures to prevent danger by the equipment under the Occupational Safety and Health Act is to prevent an industrial accident and workers.