"Who Ordered the Dangerous Quarrying?"

Sampyo Quarry Collapse Trial
Dispute Over Who Decided on the Underlying Quarrying Method

In the trial concerning the collapse accident at the Sampyo quarry, which resulted in three fatalities just two days after the Serious Accidents Punishment Act came into effect, a heated dispute over responsibility unfolded between the prosecution and witnesses regarding who ultimately decided on the "dangerous quarrying method" that directly caused the accident. The prosecution questioned whether the decision was made by upper management, while the witness, who was the site manager at the time of the accident, argued that it was a decision made at the site level.

The quarry at Sampyo Yangju Business Site where the collapse accident occurred. Photo by Yonhap News

Prosecution: "Was There a Directive from Management?"

On September 16, at the 13th hearing (2023Godan834) presided over by Judge Lee Yeongeun of the Uijeongbu District Court Criminal Division 3, the central issue was whether Chairman Chung Dowon and other members of Sampyo Industries' management were involved. The prosecution asserted that the unstable "underlying quarrying of stone powder" method was adopted under the direction of company executives to reduce costs, and pressed Choi, the former manager of the Yangju business site, who appeared as a witness. The prosecution pointed out, "The underlying quarrying of stone powder is not a common practice," and argued, "The risk assessment is not something that ends with the site manager, but is a matter for the group’s management." The prosecution then directly questioned Choi, "Did you really plan and carry out the underlying quarrying of stone powder, or was there a directive from management?" focusing on whether upper management had issued instructions.

Witness: "It Was Decided at the Site"

In response, former manager Choi consistently drew a line, partially acknowledging his own managerial responsibility but denying any direct involvement by upper management. He testified, "As the site manager and the person responsible for safety and health, I admit my failure to identify in-depth risk factors," but regarding the quarrying method, he stated, "Chairman Chung was not involved." Even in the face of repeated questioning from the prosecution, he maintained, "Decisions on how to extract aggregates are made at the site."

When Choi avoided giving a definitive answer about management’s involvement, the prosecution escalated its approach by raising the possibility of perjury. However, the court intervened, stating, "Do not keep asking when the witness is choosing not to answer," thereby concluding the questioning.

Identifying the Responsible Manager Is Key

The reason for the intense courtroom battle was that the core issue of this trial is determining "who is the responsible manager under the Serious Accidents Punishment Act." The prosecution indicted Chairman Chung, judging that he exercised final decision-making authority over safety and health matters, and is seeking to prove specific involvement by upper management. The next hearing is scheduled for October 14.

Lee Sangwoo, Law Times Reporter

※This article is based on content supplied by Law Times.

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