Supreme Court: "Responsibility for Industrial Accident Death Safety Management... 'Site Manager' Also Punished Alongside Employer"

Law: "Application Target of Penalty Provisions According to 'Yangbeol Regulation'"

Supreme Court, Seocho-gu, Seoul. Photo by Mun Ho-nam munonam@

[Asia Economy Reporter Kim Daehyun] The Supreme Court has ruled that a 'site manager' must also bear responsibility alongside the business owner for industrial accident fatalities. According to the dual punishment provision under the Industrial Safety and Health Act (which punishes both the individual who committed the illegal act and the affiliated corporation), site managers must also face criminal penalties for failing to fulfill their safety management responsibilities.

On the 15th, the Supreme Court's Second Division (Presiding Justice Jo Jaeyeon) confirmed the original sentence of six months imprisonment with a two-year probation for A, who was indicted on charges including involuntary manslaughter and violation of the Industrial Safety and Health Act. The corporation indicted alongside was fined 5 million won.

Previously, A was prosecuted for causing the death of dump truck driver B by failing to fulfill his duty of care while working as a site manager at a quarry in Wonju, Gangwon Province in 2019. B died in an accident where the vehicle overturned while unloading on a 5-meter-high soil mound.

It was investigated that A did not prepare a work plan reflecting the terrain and ground conditions for B to follow, nor did he assign a signal worker to provide proper guidance.

In court, A's side argued, "The duty of care for work-related negligence is imposed on the 'business owner' under the Industrial Safety and Health Act, so it is difficult to consider that such a duty applies to me."

The first trial court sentenced A to six months imprisonment with two years probation. The court stated, "Although the defendant is not the business owner under the Industrial Safety and Health Act, as a site manager or managing director, he has the obligation to be responsible for safety management at the site on behalf of the business owner," adding, "Being in a position acting as managing director or having recently taken on the managing director duties does not exempt him from this obligation."

Furthermore, "The purpose of the dual punishment provision under the Industrial Safety and Health Act is to punish both the actor and the business owner, whether a corporation or individual, when the business owner did not directly commit the illegal act," and "the defendant, as the site manager or acting authority, is subject to the penalty provisions under the dual punishment rule."

The appellate court also dismissed A's appeal, stating, "The defendant appeared to have directly instructed subcontracted vehicle owners like the victim and was responsible for related safety management."

The Supreme Court agreed with this judgment, stating, "The lower court did not err in its legal reasoning regarding the violation of the duty of care in involuntary manslaughter, causation, and the establishment of the violation of the Industrial Safety and Health Act."

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.