Over the four years since the Serious Accidents Punishment Act (“SAPA”) came into force, courts and investigative authorities have developed a growing body of precedents that provide important guidance on the scope of corporate and management liability in serious accident cases. This newsletter highlights several matters successfully handled by our firm and examines how the SAPA and the Occupational Safety and Health Act (“OSHA”) have been interpreted and enforced in practice. 
 

• No Liability Found for Group Chairman as Responsible Management Personnel of an Affiliate
  
  In the first SAPA case, the Prosecutors’ Office (“PO”) accused the group chairman, rather than the representative director of the company where the accident occurred, as the Responsible Management Personnel (“RMP”) responsible for SAPA obligations. The PO insisted that the group chairman was the RMP based on his involvement in overall corporate management.
  
  However, the court held that the group chairman was not liable under the SAPA, finding that a person other than the representative director may be treated as the RMP only in exceptional circumstances. Namely, such exceptions are recognized where (i) that individual exercises substantive and specific authority and responsibility to represent and oversee the company’s operations (ii) to such an extent that the representative director is unable to fulfil SAPA responsibilities. This case is currently on appeal. 
   

• No Liability Found for Entertainment Agency as Construction Project Owner in Concert Hall Construction Accident
  
  While an entertainment agency was organizing a concert for its artist, a contractor’s worker fell from a temporary structure while dismantling the concert hall after a large-scale performance. The key issue was whether the entertainment agency, which also served as the concert planner, was a principal or a “person placing an order for construction works” (a “Construction Project Owner”). Under the OSHA, a principal is responsible for safety of construction workers, while a Construction Project Owner is not. 
  
  The labor authorities ultimately classified the entertainment agency as the “Construction Project Owner” and closed the case, accepting our argument that its involvement by requesting and commenting on the desired final deliverables did not amount to exercising overall control and supervision over the construction work as the principal.
   

• No Liability Found for Steel Manufacturer as Construction Project Owner in Cooling Panel Replacement Accident
  
  An accident occurred at a steel mill during the replacement of a cooling panel for an electric arc furnace dust collector. A cooling panel fell, resulting in one fatality and one injury among the contractor’s workers. During the investigation, it was disputed whether the steel manufacturing company, which commissioned the cooling panel replacement work, could be held liable under the OSHA as the principal.
  
  Our firm argued that the company qualified as a Construction Project Owner under the OSHA on the grounds that: (i) the cooling panel replacement work that gave rise to the accident constituted mechanical works and therefore qualified as a construction project under the OSHA; (ii) as a company engaged in the steelmaking business, the company lacked the expertise and qualifications necessary to perform such work, whereas the contractor possessed sufficient experience and specialized expertise; and (iii) the company’s involvement was limited to matters such as controlling access to and from the plant by outside workers, while the contractor was responsible for the overall execution, supervision, and management of the work in question.
  
  The labor authorities accepted the defense arguments and closed the case both without imposing liabilities under the OSHA or the SAPA, recognizing the commissioning steelmaking company as a Construction Project Owner.
   

• No Liability Found for Safety and Health Manager in Fatal Factory Fire Case
  
  A fire caused by a flammable gas leak occurred at a manufacturing facility, resulting in the fatalities and injuries among workers. Following the accident, several executives and employees were indicted for occupational negligence resulting in death or injury and for violations of the OSHA. The key issue was whether the Safety and Health Manager could be held liable under the OSHA, despite the fact that the cause of the accident was the failure of on-site workers to implement necessary safety measures, such as shutting off flammable gas prior to commencing work.
  
  The PO argued that the Safety and Health Manager had disregarded known safety risks based on prior audit findings that had identified instances of non-compliance, including incorrectly completed work permits, failures to remove hazardous materials, and omissions in gas measurements.
  
  Our firm argued that the accident was primarily attributable to the errors and negligence of individual on-site workers, rather than any failure by the Safety and Health Manager to establish and implement an adequate safety management system. The court accepted these arguments and held that the Safety and Health Manager was not liable under the OSHA (specifically, Article 167, Paragraph 1), finding that: (i) in a large-scale factory employing hundreds of workers, isolated failures by some employees to comply with safety rules are inevitable, (ii) these issues should continuously be addressed through ongoing supervision and auditing mechanisms, and (iii) a company’s internal auditing efforts should not serve as a basis for imposing criminal liability on the Safety and Health Manager. 
   

• No Liability Found in Fatal Explosion Caused by Defective Vendor-Supplied Component
  
  An explosion occurred during welding work involving a product supplied by an external vendor at a steel mill. The blast caused a contractor’s employee to fall and sustain fatal injuries. The case involved several key issues, including: (i) whether the supplied product was defective, (ii) whether adequate safety measures had been implemented for the welding work, (iii) whether the location constituted a fall-hazard zone, and (iv) whether the accident was reasonably foreseeable.
  
  Our firm analyzed the entire sequence of events, including the ordering, manufacturing, delivery, and inspection of the product, as well as the circumstances at the time of the accident. Based on this analysis, we established that the explosion was caused by an inherent defect in the vendor-supplied product. We further demonstrated that the vendor possessed specialized expertise in manufacturing the product, whereas the company acted solely as the purchaser and end user. In addition, we established that the work area could not be classified as a fall-hazard zone and that the company neither knew nor could reasonably anticipate the defect. We also demonstrated that the company had faithfully fulfilled all safety and health measures required under the SAPA.
  
  Accepting these arguments, the labor authorities closed the case regarding the SAPA allegations, and the PO declined to bring charges for occupational negligence or violations of the OSHA.
   

• No Liability Found in Fatal Forklift Overturn Accident Caused by Unauthorized Operation
  
  A fatal accident occurred when a forklift overturned while being operated by a logistics company employee. The key issues were whether the accident resulted from the victim's unusual and unforeseeable behavior and whether the company could be found liable for the statutory violations.
  
  Our firm argued that the accident was not reasonably foreseeable to the company because: (i) forklift operations at the site were contracted to a separate partner company; (ii) the logistics company employees were strictly prohibited from operating the forklifts; (iii) the victim operated the forklift on own initiative without authorization, rather than as part of scheduled or assigned work; and (iv) the victim's unstable operation of the forklift was the primary cause of the accident.
  
  Accepting these arguments, the PO concluded that the accident occurred during an unforeseeable and unauthorized operation that fell outside the scope of ordinary work activities. The PO therefore found no basis to establish intent or foreseeability with respect to the accident and declined to bring charges against the logistics company for violations of the OSHA or the SAPA.
   

• No SAPA Liability Despite On-Site Safety Violations at Highway Construction Project
  
  A worker fell to his death through an opening used for material extraction during slab concrete pouring at a highway bridge construction site. The key issue was whether the fall occurred due to the company's breach of safety and health obligations under the SAPA, specifically, the duties to establish procedures for identifying and improving hazardous and risk factors and to conduct periodic inspections of compliance with applicable safety and health regulations.
  
  Our firm argued that the company had fulfilled its duties to secure safety and health under the SAPA. In particular, we emphasized that these duties constitute managerial, systemic measures, which must be strictly distinguished from the discrete on-site safety violations.
  
  The PO accepted these arguments and issued a non-indictment decision on the SAPA charges, concluding that the safety violations at the construction site could not be attributed to any breach of the company’s corporate-level safety and health obligations under the SAPA.
   

• No OSHA Liability Due to Inapplicability of Specific Safety Regulations
  
  A worker was fatally caught in industrial equipment at a manufacturing facility. The key issue was whether the company had breached the safety obligations under the OSHA.
  
  Our firm conducted a detailed analysis of the equipment usage data and demonstrated that there was no operational need for the victim to perform the task that led to the accident. We further undertook a comprehensive analysis of the relevant provisions of the Rules on Occupational Safety and Health Standards and argued that those provisions did not apply to this accident, or alternatively, that the company had not breached them.
  
  The labor authorities accepted these arguments and concluded that there was insufficient basis to establish a violation of the OSHA in connection with the accident. Accordingly, the matter was closed without proceeding to a full-scale SAPA investigation.
   

As these cases demonstrate, liability under the OSHA and the SAPA is not determined solely by the occurrence of a serious accident. Courts and investigative authorities continue to focus on issues such as the scope of control and supervision, foreseeability of the accident, causation, and whether a company has fulfilled its systemic safety and health obligations. These decisions provide useful guidance for companies seeking to assess and strengthen their safety and health management frameworks in an increasingly complex regulatory environment.

[Korean Version]