Serious Accidents Punishment Act Advisory | A Case of a Serious Industrial Accident Concluded With a Closing of the Preliminary Inquiry

The attorney in charge collaborated closely with a domestic civil engineering expert to thoroughly analyze the cause of the accident.

Based on the professional advice of a national university professor in the field of civil engineering, the attorney actively argued, by presenting the following scientific grounds, that the matter did not amount to a violation of the duty to secure safety and health under the Serious Accidents Punishment Act.

• Proof of the absence of prior signs:The attorney made clear that no cracks or signs of subsidence whatsoever had been found on the site's road surface up until just before the accident. Emphasizing that it was impossible to predict the occurrence of a sinkhole by ordinary visual inspection alone, the attorney argued that this was a serious accident beyond the range that the company could foresee.
  
  Identification of the sudden brittle failure phenomenon:The attorney scientifically explained that the accident ground did not weaken and collapse gradually, but rather collapsed suddenly through a brittle failure phenomenon while work was proceeding stably. This means that there is a high likelihood that it occurred abruptly due to an external impact or an unexpected structural cause, rather than the gradual neglect of ground management.
  
  Analysis of the stability of the surrounding ground:By proving that there was no displacement whatsoever in the reinforced-earth retaining wall near the accident site, the attorney demonstrated that the accident was a sinkhole phenomenon that occurred locally at a specific point. This became a decisive ground supporting that the accident was caused by an unforeseeable natural factor, not by the company's neglect of its overall duty to manage the ground.

The attorney in charge also did not overlook specifically demonstrating that the client company had faithfully fulfilled the duty to secure safety and health prescribed by law.

As whether the chief safety officer fulfilled his duties is the key issue under the Serious Accidents Punishment Act, the attorney constructed the response strategy centered on the measures taken before the accident occurred.

The attorney confirmed the fact that, before the accident, the persons involved, including the site supervisor, the construction company's representative, and the equipment operator, had 1) carefully inspected the ground condition in advance, and that the paved surface showed no abnormality at the time.

The attorney logically explained that an additional boring survey and the like were not a common practice in the industry at the time and, given the nature of the private land, were a circumstance that was practically impossible.

In addition, the attorney proved that, when installing the pump truck outrigger, the company had taken safety measures exceeding the legal standard, such as 2) using a safety plate to distribute the load.

In accordance with the result of a comprehensive review of matters such as the scope of the contractor's duty to take safety measures under Article 63 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act, the attorney also made clear that 3) the provision of protective equipment such as safety helmets and prior safety training had likewise been thoroughly conducted for the workers, but that the victim's failure to wear it at the time of the accident was personal negligence.

Under the Serious Accidents Punishment Act, an amicable settlement with the victim is a major ground for consideration in sentencing.

The attorney in charge broadly secured the following mitigating factors and submitted them to the investigative authorities.

• Receipt of a petition for leniency and a statement of no desire for punishment through a settlement with the bereaved family
• The representative director's absence of any record of violating safety-related laws and regulations
• A rate of fatal accidents per ten thousand workers markedly lower than that of the same industry
• Commendations received for continuous contributions to disaster recovery activities in the local community

An analysis of cases of acquittal under the Serious Accidents Punishment Act reveals that substantive liability, causation, and formal assessment of the scope of the law's application are the main grounds.

Please note that liability under the Serious Accidents Punishment Act is recognized not for a formal breach of duty, but only where the actual intent or negligence of the chief safety officer, foreseeability, and failure to perform become the direct cause of the accident.