Serious Accident Punishment Act | Analysis of the judgment of a business owner who violated the Serious Accident Punishment Act and was sentenced to 2 years in prison.

The judgment handed down on April 4 was the fifteenth ruling and the one in which the heaviest sentence was imposed.

The first judgment imposing an actual custodial sentence was the second-numbered judgment, which became final at the Supreme Court in December 2023 (Supreme Court, Decision of December 28, 2023, 2023 Do 12316).

Considering that precedents on violations of the Serious Accidents Punishment Act have not yet accumulated sufficiently and that the courts' sentencing standards have not been established, the above judgment and each judgment to be handed down in the future are expected to have a significant influence on the determination of guilt or innocence and on sentencing in subsequent cases.

The court treated as important sentencing factors that, with respect to leaving the defects in the relevant equipment unaddressed after safety inspections and the inadequacy of safety education, the company had taken no particular corrective measures despite having been repeatedly cautioned through safety inspections about the equipment's defects and the risk of an accident, had not educated workers on the dangers of the equipment, and had allowed the situation to result in a fatal accident while the equipment had lost its protective function.

The court determined that, even though the company had promptly reached a settlement with the bereaved family immediately after the accident and had taken corrective measures, leniency in the form of a suspended sentence (a suspended sentence under Korean law, broadly comparable to a suspended sentence or probation in common-law systems, under which the conviction loses its effect once the suspension period passes without incident) could not be granted.

This is a highly significant point, in that, where a company fails to take the necessary measures to eliminate in advance the hazardous and dangerous factors it has identified and instead leaves them unaddressed, leading to an accident, this may operate as an unfavorable sentencing factor under which even an actual custodial sentence may be imposed on the company's representative.

In particular, in the second-numbered judgment finalized by the Supreme Court, the court held that there appeared to be a structural problem threatening the safety rights of the workers concerned.

The court noted that, where a similar accident occurred during the company representative's tenure, or where, even without an accident necessarily having occurred, there are numerous instances in which violations of safety-measure obligations were detected during inspections by the relevant authorities, the likelihood that a heavy punishment will be imposed on that company's representative is relatively high; accordingly, it is important to verify whether the safety measures required under the Occupational Safety and Health Act are properly implemented on site and to ensure that any inadequacies are promptly remedied.

Business owners must put in place a system to take corrective measures preemptively for matters pointed out as a result of safety inspections or labor supervision, and to continuously check whether improvements have been made and whether the improved condition is being maintained.

Given that in every case from the first through the fifteenth the prosecution sought a sentence of imprisonment and the court likewise imposed a sentence of imprisonment, it appears that, going forward as well, business managers are more likely to receive a sentence of imprisonment than a fine.

In particular, whether prior fatal industrial accidents have occurred, the number of industrial accidents, and whether there is a prior conviction of the same kind for violation of the safety-measure obligations under the Occupational Safety and Health Act are likely to be considered as principal sentencing factors, and it should be borne in mind that, depending on these factors, the possibility of an actual custodial sentence cannot be ruled out.

In the second-numbered case and others, the court reached its determination on the premise of a so-called multi-stage causal relationship linking the breach of the obligation to secure safety and health under the Serious Accidents Punishment Act with the performance of the safety-measure obligation under the Occupational Safety and Health Act.

As to the determination of the number of offenses, however, the prosecution argued that violation of the Serious Accidents Punishment Act, violation of the Occupational Safety and Health Act, and occupational negligence causing death were each separate acts whose identity was not recognized and were therefore in a relationship of substantive concurrence, whereas the court determined that they were all in a relationship of conceptual concurrence.

This interpretation by the court as to the determination of the number of offenses and the causal relationship is expected to continue in subsequent judgments.(Where a relationship of substantive concurrence is recognized, the statutory penalty is aggravated.)