Analysis of the First Applications of the Serious Accidents Punishment Act

The Serious Accidents Punishment Act (“SAPA”) is a relatively new legislation that came into force on January 27, 2022. SAPA purports to “prevent serious accidents and protect the lives and physical safety of citizens and workers by prescribing the punishment, etc. of business owners, responsible managing officers, public officials, and corporations that have caused casualties in violation of their duties to take safety and health measures while operating businesses or places of business, public-use facilities, or public transportation vehicles or handling materials or products harmful to human bodies.” ¹

Thus far, there have been two SAPA cases in which the courts have rendered decisions: the 2022Godan3254 case decided by the Goyang Branch of the Uijeongbu District Court on April 6, 2023 (the “First SAPA Case”); and the 2022Gohap95 case decided by the Masan Branch of the Changwon District Court on April 26, 2023 (the “Second SAPA Case”).

In both cases, among other defendants, a representative director of a defendant company was held personally liable for failing to take proactive measures to prevent an industrial accident in which an employee of a contractor providing services to the defendant company died while on duty at the defendant company’s site. However, the representative directors in these cases received different sentences for their SAPA violations, with one facing a more severe punishment than the other.

In the First SAPA Case, the representative director was sentenced to 18 months in prison, with a three-year suspension of execution. This sentence drew criticism from labor activists, who viewed it as a slap on the wrist, as the representative director will not be imprisoned unless he commits another criminal offense during the suspension period.

On the other hand, about 20 days after the First SAPA Case, the court in the Second SAPA Case sentenced the representative director of the defendant company to one year in prison without a suspension of execution and ordered their arrest at the sentencing.

Despite both cases having the same factors favorable to the defendants, such as reaching a settlement with the grieving family of the deceased and the defendant representative director admitting to all charges, the key difference that led to a more severe sentence in the Second SAPA appears to be a structural problem within the defendant company. The court in the Second SAPA Case pointed to the following grounds for its judgment: the defendant company had previously received penalty fines for violating safety measures multiple times; and the accident occurred while the defendant company was already undergoing a separate criminal trial related to a previous industrial death accident.

These SAPA cases highlight the importance of not only reaching a settlement with the victim or their aggrieved family and acknowledging wrongdoing after an industrial accident occurs but also establishing and ensuring the implementation of a robust health and safety system in compliance with SAPA before any accidents happen. Also, it is noteworthy from these cases that, in the event of an accident, it is crucial to take measures to prevent similar incidents from occurring in the future.

^{1_{Article 1, SAPA}}