Calls are mounting inside and outside legal circles for sentencing guidelines on violations of the Serious Accidents Punishment Act. The push aims to enhance legal stability by preventing inconsistent rulings that vary by court, while encouraging companies to strengthen preventive safety measures through clearer criteria for sentence reductions.
According to the Supreme Prosecutors' Office and legal sources on the 24th, 97 cases were prosecuted under the Act last year, with projections that this year could exceed 100. The caseload may eventually match violations of the Occupational Safety and Health Act, which sees 200 to 300 cases referred to trial annually. Last year, 212 cases were referred to trial for Occupational Safety and Health Act violations, down from 394 in 2023 and 315 in 2024.
The problem is that unlike the Occupational Safety and Health Act, the Serious Accidents Punishment Act still lacks sentencing guidelines. Guidelines for Occupational Safety and Health Act violations have been in effect since July 1, 2016. For employer violations of safety and health obligations, the standard sentence ranges from six months to one year and six months, extending to one to two and a half years with aggravating factors, or reducing to four to eight months with mitigating factors. When a worker dies, the standard sentence is one to two and a half years, increasing to two to five years with aggravating factors, or decreasing to six months to one year and six months with mitigating factors.
In contrast, despite nearly 100 prosecutions under the Serious Accidents Punishment Act last year, the absence of sentencing guidelines has left both victims and defendants unable to accept court decisions. In September last year, the Supreme Court sentenced former Samgang S&C CEO Mr. A to two years in prison and the company to a 2 billion won fine for a subcontractor employee's fatal fall during work. Yet in October the same year, Incheon District Court sentenced Mr. B, head of a metal fabrication company prosecuted for a worker's fatal fall, to six months in prison with a two-year suspended sentence. The same type of fatal accident resulted in prison time for one and probation for the other.
A labor law attorney emphasized, "As worker fatalities continue unabated, prosecutions under the Act could surge annually. Without sentencing guidelines, punishment levels including prison terms and fines vary widely depending on the court."
In response to calls for guidelines inside and outside the courts, the Supreme Court's Sentencing Commission held a plenary meeting on the 12th of last month and decided to begin related work. Legal and industrial circles are increasingly calling for pre- and post-accident safety measures to be reflected as mitigating factors, as existing precedents have considered appropriate responses including safety measures both before and after serious accidents in determining punishment levels.
In November last year, Incheon District Court sentenced Mr. D, CEO and management officer of Company C prosecuted for violating the Act, to one year in prison with a two-year suspended sentence. The court cited as mitigating factors the amicable settlement with the victim's family and their request for leniency, as well as improvements to workplace problems based on a safety diagnosis report from an industrial safety diagnosis association. The court also noted the company's strengthened safety and health management measures, including regular safety training.
A labor attorney analyzed, "When serious accidents occur, companies investigate causes not only for the affected area but also for similar processes, inspecting entire factory systems before implementing improvements. Voluntarily initiating pre- and post-accident measures to eliminate accident risks in specific processes can certainly be recognized as grounds for sentence reduction."
Industry observers believe that including enhanced safety management measures in sentencing guidelines could help curb the surge in safety accidents that the current punishment-focused Act has failed to prevent. A legal source said, "Establishing sentencing guidelines may not directly reduce related cases, but it could have an indirect impact. The punishment-centered paradigm of the Serious Accidents Punishment Act needs to change."