Four Years of the Serious Accidents Punishment Act, Slap-on-the-Wrist Punishment Now Over... What Changes Do the New Sentencing Guidelines Foreshadow?

-Legal column by Jeong Sang-hyeok, Attorney at Daeryun LLC (limited)

Although the Serious Accidents Punishment Act has entered its fourth year, fatal accidents at industrial sites are hardly decreasing. Fatalities from business owners' violations of safety and health measure obligations showed a gradual decline of 623 in 2022, 597 in 2023, and 589 in 2024, but the margin is minimal. Targeting this stagnation, the Supreme Court's Sentencing Commission recently moved. It set out to prepare separate sentencing guidelines for the crime of violating the Serious Accidents Punishment Act. Sentencing guidelines have no legal binding force, but they are guidelines that judges substantively refer to when sentencing. Until now, without such guidelines, sentencing varied greatly among judges, and there were many criticisms that the 'slap-on-the-wrist punishment' controversy repeated. In fact, of the 31 cases finalized by the end of 2024 after the law took effect, only 4 resulted in actual imprisonment.

The gist of the new sentencing guidelines is twofold. One is the reorganization of the crime group. Violation of the Serious Accidents Punishment Act will be added as a separate major category to the existing 'negligent homicide and injury / industrial safety and health crime' sentencing guidelines, and the subcategories will be divided into serious industrial accident causing injury and serious industrial accident causing death. The other is the recidivism aggravation provision. If the same crime recurs within five years after a sentence for a serious industrial accident crime is finalized, both the upper and lower limits of the sentence are aggravated by 1.5 times. This means that for a management official with a prior punishment record, the next accident could mean actual imprisonment. On top of this, these sentencing guidelines apply only to imprisonment. While corporate fines have remained relatively low, criminal liability restricting the physical freedom of the management official as an individual is expected to be imposed more substantively going forward.

Once the sentencing guidelines are established, expecting 'light punishment' becomes even more difficult. So what should companies inspect now?

First, whether the safety and health management system is actually functioning. Article 4 of the Serious Accidents Act imposes on management officials the obligation to establish personnel, budget, and a safety and health management system. The logic running through the acquittal rulings so far was one: acquittal was possible not simply because documents existed, but because the court recognized that things were actually carried out as those documents specified. The key is not the existence of a manual but the evidence backing its implementation.

Second, conducting risk assessments and managing their records. When judging the foreseeability of an accident, the court examines risk assessment records as key evidence. When it is disputed whether one knew of a risk factor in advance but left it unaddressed, or whether there was an appropriate response procedure when an abnormal sign was detected, the presence or absence of these records often determines the judgment.

Third, an initial response system that can be activated immediately after an accident occurs. Following last October's asphyxiation accident at a zinc factory in Gyeongju, the Ministry of Employment and Labor officially announced that even without a major accident, it would actively utilize compulsory investigation such as search and seizure and arrest when basic safety rules are not observed or the same type of accident repeats. A hotline and dedicated investigation system among the Ministry of Labor, prosecution, and police is already in operation, so an accident can lead immediately to criminal proceedings. Contemplating a response only after an accident is too late. What materials to submit and how at the initial investigation stage, and when to bring in legal counsel, need to be decided in advance.

Fourth, clarifying where responsibility lies between the prime contractor and subcontractor. The court judges the management official's obligation based not on the wording of the contract but on the 'workplace substantially controlled, operated, and managed.' Inserting a clause in the subcontracting contract passing safety responsibility to the subcontractor does not free one from responsibility. A workplace that extensively uses subcontractors must inspect the prime contractor's fulfillment of safety and health obligations based on who actually exercises on-site command and supervision authority, rather than on the contract wording.

The Supreme Court Sentencing Commission's initiation of new sentencing guidelines is not merely institutional maintenance. It is an inflection point that can shatter business owners' calculation that 'even if punished, actual imprisonment can be avoided.' Safety management is now not a cost but a minimum condition for protecting the management official's own freedom. This is a time when prior inspection and legal counsel, rather than after-the-fact response, have become more important than ever.

Reporter Lee Dong-oh (canon35@mt.co.kr)

[Read the full article]
Four Years of the Serious Accidents Punishment Act, Slap-on-the-Wrist Punishment Now Over... What Changes Do the New Sentencing Guidelines Foreshadow? (Go to link)