Key Details and Implications of the First Court Decision in a SAPA Case

On April 6, 2023, about 14 months after the enforcement of the Serious Accidents Punishment Act (the “SAPA”), the first court decision was rendered in a SAPA case (2022Godan3254, the Goyang Branch of the Uijeongbu District Court) (the “Court Decision”).

The Court Decision is significant in various aspects, setting aside the fact that it marks the first SAPA court decision in Korea. The key details and implications of the Court Decision are summarized as follows:

Key Details of the Court Decision

In this case, a construction company (the “Service-Receiving Party”) contracted a part of the construction works to a contractor (the “Subcontractor”). An employee of the Subcontractor fell from a certain height and into an opening at the site, while working on the opening without wearing a safety harness. The court imposed a prison sentence of 18 months (with a three-year suspension of execution) on the representative director of the Service-Receiving Party for a violation of the SAPA (death by serious industrial accident), and a prison sentence of eight months each (with a two-year suspension of execution) on the site managers of the Service-Receiving Party and the Subcontractor for death by occupational negligence and a violation of the Occupational Safety and Health Act (“OSHA”). The court also imposed a criminal fine of KRW 30 million on the Service-Receiving Party for a violation of the SAPA (death resulting from serious industrial accident) and a violation of the OSHA.

The Uijeongbu District Court found that the accident was due to the Service-Receiving Party’s failure to take appropriate safety measures, which resulted from its non-compliance with the obligations to ensure safety and health under the SAPA, including (i) establishment of work procedures to identify and address hazard and risk factors (Article 4, Item 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the SAPA), (ii) establishment of criteria and standards for evaluation safety and health managers, etc. (Article 4, Item 5(b) of the Enforcement Decree of the SAPA), and (iii) establishment of an emergency response manual (Article 4, Item 8 of the Enforcement Decree of the SAPA). The aforementioned three provisions are known to be the most frequently applied provisions by the investigative authorities since the SAPA came into effect.

Regarding the grounds for sentencing, the Court Decision identifies the following as the unfavorable sentencing factors: (i) the Service-Receiving Party’s failure to comply with its obligations, despite a considerable social consensus on placing heavier social and financial responsibilities on project owners (service-receiving parties), in addition to the enactment of the SAPA; (ii) the irreversible and serious consequences of the accident which led to the victim’s death, and (iii) a high likelihood that the victim’s death could have been prevented if part of the obligations had been fulfilled. On the other hand, the Court Decision notes the following as the favorable sentencing factors: (i) the fact that placing the entire responsibility on the defendants is too severe because the victim’s death was, in part, attributable to the prevailing practice among construction workers (e.g., arbitrary removal of safety railings), (ii) the fact that the bereaved family does not want punishment for the defendants because both sides reached a settlement, and (iii) the fact that the Service-Receiving Party has announced a detailed plan to establish a safety and health management system as required by the SAPA to prevent the recurrence of similar accidents.

Implications of the Court Decision

The Court Decision is significant in the following aspects:

(1)	Among the persons indicted in this case, the representative director of the Service-Receiving Party, due to the application of the SAPA, faced the most severe criminal punishment. Out of the six persons (two individuals from the Service-Receiving Party, two individuals from the Subcontractor, and the two corporate entities) indicted in connection with the fatal accident, the court imposed the most severe sentence on the representative director of the Service-Receiving Party for a SAPA violation (the representative director of the Subcontractor was not indicted because he/she was not subject to the SAPA). While Korean courts have not yet established sentencing guidelines for violations of the SAPA, as long as the rationale underlying the Court Decision is maintained, it is likely that a more severe sentence would be imposed on SAPA violations than on a death by occupational negligence or a violation of the OSHA.
(2)	Prison sentences were imposed despite a number of favorable sentencing factors. According to the Court Decision in this case, there were extenuating circumstances favorable to the defendants, including that (i) the accident led to the death of only one person and a settlement was reached with the bereaved family, (ii) the victim’s negligence was, in part, attributable to his death, and (iii) the Service-Receiving Party promised to prevent the recurrence of similar accidents. Despite these extenuating circumstances favorable to the defendants, however, the court imposed a prison sentence of 18 months (with a suspension of execution) for a violation of the SAPA. Therefore, it appears that going forward, we cannot rule out the possibility that the courts, in other similar cases, may also impose a sentence that is equal to, or more severe than, the one in this case.
(3)	The Court Decision is premised on the so-called “multi-level causation” that interconnects a violation of the SAPA obligations to ensure safety and health with compliance with the OSHA obligations to take safety measures under the OSHA. From the perspective of the multi-level causation, when a violation of the obligations to take safety measures under the OSHA is the direct cause of a serious industrial accident, this can be construed as a violation of the SAPA on condition that (i) a violation of the SAPA obligations to ensure safety and health (ii) is proven to be the reason that it was impossible, or only insufficiently possible, to comply with the OSHA obligations to take safety measures, and that (iii) this is acknowledged to be the factor that eventually resulted in the serious industrial accident (see “Key Issues of the Serious Accidents Punishment Act in the Context of Trial Practice,” Judicial Policy Research Institute, December 2022, pg. 117-119). According to the Court Decision, the defendant’s violation of the SAPA led to a failure to take safety measures under the OSHA, thereby causing the accident. This view is in line with the aforesaid perspective.

(4)

Regarding the interpretation of major provisions of the SAPA, it is necessary to monitor how courts render decisions in other similar cases going forward.

The Court Decision mainly addresses those provisions that are frequently applied to SAPA cases. However, the Court Decision is silent as to whether the defendants failed to comply with the obligations under such provisions. This is probably because whether the indicted persons should be deemed as the responsible management personnel (“RMP”) or whether they failed to comply with SAPA obligations was not actively contested by the defendant in this case.

Therefore, to have a better understanding of the criteria used by the courts to determine the RMP’s liability under the SAPA, it is necessary to keep an eye on future cases where the scope of the RMP or the RMP’s compliance with SAPA obligations to ensure safety and health are contested.

[Korean Version]

Share

Professionals

Professionals