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. |
(2) |
Prison sentences were imposed despite a number of favorable sentencing factors. |
(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. |
(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. |
Related Topics