KCCI "31 Rulings Since Enforcement of the Serious Accidents Punishment Act... Difficult to Prove Causation"

The Korea Employers Federation pointed out that although the Serious Accidents Punishment Act (hereinafter referred to as the SAPA) has been in effect for three years, there are still controversies regarding legal interpretations and proving causal relationships. The Federation demanded that the government and the National Assembly revise the law to ensure that the SAPA can function effectively in industrial sites.

According to the report titled "Current Status of SAPA Verdicts and Implications" released by the Federation on the 23rd, since the SAPA was enforced in January 2021, court rulings have been made on 31 cases of SAPA violations prosecuted by the prosecution.

Among these, 29 cases resulted in guilty verdicts (2 cases of imprisonment, 23 cases of suspended sentences, and 2 cases of fines), and 2 cases were acquitted. The reasons for imprisonment sentences included similar past accidents, prior convictions of the same kind, and neglect of safety inspection points. Sentences ranged from 1 to 2 years of imprisonment for CEOs.

By industry, more than half (51%) of the 31 cases occurred in the construction industry (16 cases), followed by manufacturing (12 cases), and other industries (3 cases). By company size, small and medium-sized enterprises (50 to 299 employees) accounted for 27 cases, mid-sized enterprises (300 to 999 employees) for 4 cases, and there have been no rulings on large enterprises (1,000 or more employees) to date.

Status of the Serious Accidents Punishment Act rulings by industry (left side of the image) and by scale. Provided by the Korea Employers Federation

The Federation expressed doubts about the accident prevention effects of applying the SAPA and diagnosed that confusion has rather increased since the law was applied to industrial sites.

First, the Federation mentioned that there are many controversies in legal interpretation and application due to the uncertainty and ambiguity of the SAPA. In particular, most rulings specify the cause of accidents as violations of SAPA obligations, but it is difficult to prove a clear causal relationship between the management responsibility and the occurrence of serious accidents.

Furthermore, the Federation criticized that in cases involving the death of subcontracted workers, guilty verdicts were handed down without properly distinguishing the status and roles of the primary contractor and subcontractor, which is inconsistent with safety principles. Additionally, some rulings violate the principle of strict interpretation of laws that prohibit expansive interpretation, and punishment tends to be concentrated only on representatives of small-scale workplaces with limited manpower and financial resources.

Finally, even at this point, three years after the law’s enforcement, the trend of industrial accidents remains similar, leading to the diagnosis that the SAPA has minimal impact on reducing serious accidents in industrial sites.

Im Woo-taek, head of the Safety and Health Division at the Federation, emphasized, "At the point of approaching three years since the enforcement of the SAPA, it is necessary for the government and the National Assembly to promptly pursue legislative amendments to enhance the feasibility and predictability of SAPA compliance."

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