법무법인 프런티어
Serious Accidents Punishment Act Lawyer
Serious Accidents Punishment Act Lawyer | Duties, Penalties, and a Defense Roadmap for Employers
The Serious Accidents Punishment Act (중대재해처벌법) allows prosecutors to pursue the CEO or business owner personally, not only the corporation, when a "serious industrial accident" occurs and the employer failed to establish and implement required safety and health management systems (중대재해처벌법 제4조, 제6조). Liability turns on whether concrete safety obligations — budget, personnel, hazard assessment, corrective measures — were actually implemented, not just documented on paper. Since 2024 the Act also applies to businesses with 5 to 49 employees, dramatically expanding the pool of exposed owners. Once an accident is reported, the window to organize records and legal position before the first prosecutorial interview is short.
Serious Accidents Punishment Act | Who Counts as the Responsible Person, and Which Businesses Are Covered
The Act does not simply punish 'the company.' It targets a specific decision-maker, and the scope of covered businesses has expanded over time.
Definition of 'business owner or person responsible for management'
The Act defines the criminally liable party as the business owner or the person who has final responsibility for the operation of the business, typically the CEO or a representative director with real decision-making authority over safety budgeting and personnel (중대재해처벌법 제2조 제9호). A nominal or figurehead representative without actual authority may not be the correct target — but prosecutors will look past titles to who actually controlled safety-related decisions.
Business size thresholds
Since January 27, 2024, the Act applies to businesses with 5 or more employees, after an earlier grace period exempted businesses with fewer than 50 employees (중대재해처벌법 제3조, 부칙). Businesses with fewer than 5 employees remain outside the scope. This expansion means many small and mid-sized manufacturers, construction subcontractors, and logistics operators are now directly exposed.
What qualifies as a 'serious industrial accident'
A serious industrial accident includes a death of a worker, two or more workers suffering injuries requiring six months or more of treatment from the same accident, or three or more workers contracting the same occupational disease within a year (중대재해처벌법 제2조 제2호). Whether an incident meets this threshold is itself sometimes disputed and affects whether the Act applies at all.
Serious Accidents Punishment Act | What the 'Safety and Health Management System' Actually Requires
The core of the Act is not a single safety rule but a set of systemic obligations. Prosecutors build their case around whether these systems existed and were actually followed, not just written into a manual.
Budget and personnel for safety management
Employers must allocate a budget sufficient to identify and remove hazards and must appoint personnel with authority to carry out safety and health duties (중대재해처벌법 제4조 제1항 제1호, 시행령 제4조). A common prosecution theory is that the budget existed on paper but was never actually spent or was diverted elsewhere.
Hazard identification and risk assessment procedures
The Act requires a recurring procedure to identify hazards and risks and to take corrective action, including a review at least once a year of whether that procedure is actually functioning (시행령 제4조 제3호). If a company's risk assessment log was created only after the accident, or was never updated to reflect the specific worksite, this becomes central evidence against the employer.
Response and reporting manuals
Employers must establish manuals for responding to safety hazards including reporting procedures, work suspension authority, and evacuation protocols, and must verify at least semi-annually that these manuals are actually followed (시행령 제4조 제8호, 제9호). A manual that exists only as a template downloaded from elsewhere, with no site-specific training records, is a frequent weak point identified during investigations.
Duties toward third-party contractors
Where a business outsources work, the same safety and health duties extend to ensuring the contractor also has the capacity to manage safety, and the principal contractor cannot simply push all safety obligations down to a subcontractor by contract (중대재해처벌법 제5조). This is a major issue in construction and manufacturing outsourcing structures.
Serious Accidents Punishment Act | Proving (or Disproving) the Link Between the Failure and the Accident
Even where a duty violation is established, the prosecution must still prove that the specific failure caused the specific accident. This causation element is where many defense strategies focus.
The prosecution must connect a specific systemic failure to the specific accident
It is not enough for prosecutors to show that a safety system was generally deficient; they must show that the deficiency was a cause of the death or injury that occurred, applying general criminal negligence causation principles alongside the Act's specific duties. Courts have in several cases acquitted executives where the accident resulted from a worker's own unforeseeable deviation from a properly established safety procedure.
Intervening negligence by the worker or a third party
If the injured worker ignored an established safety protocol, disabled a safety device, or an independent third party's conduct intervened, this can break or weaken the causal chain the prosecution relies on. Documenting exactly what safety instructions and protective equipment were provided before the accident is critical to this defense.
Distinguishing the Act's liability from ordinary occupational safety law violations
A violation of the Occupational Safety and Health Act (산업안전보건법) does not automatically mean the Serious Accidents Punishment Act applies — the latter requires the higher-level systemic failure described above, not merely a site-level rule violation. Employers are sometimes prosecuted for both, but the elements and available defenses differ.
Serious Accidents Punishment Act | Building a Defense After an Accident Is Reported
Once the Ministry of Employment and Labor or the police begin an investigation, the employer's response in the first days shapes the entire case.
Immediate response at the accident scene
Employers have parallel duties to report the accident and to preserve the scene for the Ministry of Employment and Labor and, in fatal cases, the police, while also beginning to compile the company's own safety management records (산업안전보건법 제57조 관련 규정). How the initial internal fact-finding is documented often becomes evidence in the later criminal case, so this stage should be handled with legal advice from the outset.
Reviewing whether the safety and health management system meets the statutory standard
Counsel typically audits the company's budget execution records, risk assessment logs, training records, and the actual authority structure of the safety manager against the specific decree requirements (시행령 제4조, 제5조), to identify both weaknesses to shore up and grounds for arguing the system was in fact compliant.
Responding to a prosecutorial summons or indictment
If the business owner or CEO is summoned, preparation includes reviewing prior statements from employees and safety officers, aligning the company's documentary evidence, and preparing a coherent account of the safety management system's actual operation, since inconsistent statements between company personnel are a common source of additional exposure.
Sentencing-stage considerations if a violation is found
Where the Act's violation is established, the death of a worker carries a statutory minimum sentence of one year imprisonment, and courts consider the extent of remedial measures, compensation and settlement with the victim's family, and the company's prior compliance record in sentencing (중대재해처벌법 제6조 제1항). Presenting evidence of good-faith remediation after the accident can materially affect the outcome at this stage.
⚠ Early record preservation is time-sensitive
Safety records, CCTV footage, and internal messages about the accident can be lost, overwritten, or misinterpreted if not preserved immediately. Coordinating with counsel before internal investigation interviews are conducted, and before any records are voluntarily submitted, is important because early statements are difficult to walk back later.
Serious Accidents Punishment Act | From Accident Report to Case Resolution
Counsel reviews the accident report, existing safety management documentation, and the company's organizational structure to assess exposure for the individual executive and the corporation.
CCTV, safety logs, training records, and internal communications relevant to the accident are identified and preserved before they are lost or requested by investigators.
Counsel prepares the company and executive for interviews with the Ministry of Employment and Labor and, where applicable, the police or prosecution, and responds to document requests.
A written opinion or defense brief is prepared addressing whether the statutory safety and health duties were met and whether causation between any deficiency and the accident can be established.
If prosecution proceeds, the strategy shifts to trial defense or, where a violation is likely to be found, to presenting mitigating factors such as remediation and victim compensation at sentencing.
Serious Accidents Punishment Act | How Fees Are Typically Set
Generally set based on the complexity of the safety management system review, the number of executives and entities involved, and the stage at which counsel is engaged (investigation vs. post-indictment).
Where applicable, tied to the specific outcome sought — such as a non-prosecution decision, reduced charges, or a suspended sentence — and agreed upon in advance rather than promised as a guaranteed result.
Reviewing extensive safety records, video footage, and prior compliance documentation across a company's history can require significant time, which is reflected separately from the base retainer in complex matters.
Cases often require input from occupational safety engineers or industrial hygienists to assess whether hazard controls met technical standards, and these expert costs are typically itemized separately.
※ Costs vary depending on case complexity and specific circumstances; exact fees will be provided during consultation. No specific outcome is guaranteed.
Serious Accidents Punishment Act | Self-Assessment Checklists
1️⃣ For Business Owners/CEOs Before an Accident Occurs
- Do you know exactly who within your organization has final decision-making authority over the safety budget?
- Has your safety budget actually been spent on hazard removal, or does it exist only as a line item?
- Is your hazard identification and risk assessment procedure reviewed and updated at least annually?
- Do your safety response manuals include site-specific training records, not just a generic template?
- Have you verified that your subcontractors have adequate safety management capacity?
2️⃣ Immediately After a Serious Accident Is Reported
- Has the accident scene been preserved, including CCTV and any physical evidence?
- Have internal communications about the accident been collected and preserved before they are altered or deleted?
- Has legal counsel been consulted before any internal interviews or voluntary document submissions to investigators?
- Is there a clear, consistent internal account of how the safety management system was actually operating at the time of the accident?
3️⃣ During a Ministry of Employment and Labor or Police Investigation
- Have prior statements from employees and safety officers been reviewed for consistency with the company's documentary evidence?
- Has counsel reviewed whether the accident meets the statutory definition of a 'serious industrial accident'?
- Is there a clear position on whether the safety and health management duties under the enforcement decree were met?
- Has the causal link between any alleged deficiency and the specific accident been analyzed?
4️⃣ If Indicted or Facing Sentencing
- Has remediation of the safety deficiency been implemented and documented since the accident?
- Has compensation or settlement with the victim's family been discussed or completed?
- Is there a compiled record of the company's broader compliance history to present at sentencing?
- Has the defense addressed both duty compliance and causation as separate legal issues?
Frequently Asked Questions
Official References
개인정보처리방침
제 1 조 수집하는 개인정보의 항목, 목적, 방법
제 2 조 개인정보의 처리 및 보유기간
제 3 조 개인정보의 제3자 제공
제 4 조 개인정보 처리업무의 위탁
제 5 조 정보주체의 권리·의무 및 그 행사방법
제 6 조 개인정보의 파기
제 7 조 의견수렴 및 불만처리
제 8 조 개인정보 처리방침의 변경
제 9 조 개인정보의 안전성 확보 조치
제 1 조 (수집하는 개인정보의 항목, 목적, 방법)
① 게시판 글 작성 시 필수 항목에 대한 수집목적은 ‘별도의 구체적 상담을 위하여’이며 수집항목은 ‘이름, 이메일, 연락처’입니다.
② 전항 외에 고객의 서비스 이용 과정이나 요청 사항 처리 과정에서 ‘IP주소, 접속로그, 단말기 및 환경정보, 서비스 이용기록, 쿠키’와 같은 정보들이 자동으로 수집 및 저장될 수 있으며, 이 때의 수집목적은 ‘사용자 홈페이지 이용, 사이트 이용에 대한 문의 민원 등 고객 고충 처리’입니다.
③ 사무소는 ‘홈페이지 고객 문의/고충 처리 시 전화 또는 인터넷을 통한 상담’과 같은 방법으로 개인정보를 수집합니다
제 2 조 (개인정보의 처리 및 보유기간)
관계법령의 규정에 따라 개인정보를 보존하여야 하는 의무가 있는 경우가 아닌 한, 정보주체의 개인정보는 원칙적으로 해당 개인정보의 처리목적이 달성될 때까지 보유 및 이용되며, 그 목적이 달성되면 지체 없이 파기됩니다.
제 3 조 (개인정보의 제3자 제공)
사무소는 정보주체의 개인정보를 본 처리방침에서 명시한 목적에 한해서만 처리하며 정보주체의 사전동의가 있는 경우 또는 개인정보보호법 등 관계법령의 규정에 의거한 경우에만 개인정보를 제3자에게 제공합니다. 사무소는 현재 개인정보를 제3자에게 제공하지 않고 있습니다.
제 4 조 (개인정보 처리업무의 위탁)
사무소는 현재 귀하의 개인정보 보호를 위해 귀하의 개인정보를 직접 취급 관리하고 있습니다. 단, 향후 보다 전문적인 서비스를 제공하기 위하여 제3의 전문기관에 귀하의 정보를 위탁할 필요가 있다고 판단되는 경우, 귀하의 사전 동의 하에 개인정보에 대한 취급을 위탁할 수 있습니다.
제 5 조 (정보주체의 권리·의무 및 그 행사방법)
① 정보주체는 개인정보보호법 등 관계법령이 정하는 바에 따라 사무소에 대해 개인정보의 열람, 정정 및 삭제, 처리정지 요구 등 개인정보 보호 관련 권리를 행사할 수 있습니다.
② 제1항에 따른 권리행사는 정보주체의 법정대리인이나 위임을 받은 사람을 통해서도 할 수 있습니다. 다만, 이 경우에는 개인정보보호법 시행규칙에 따른 위임장을 사무소에 제출하여야 합니다.
③ 사무소는 정보주체의 권리행사에 대하여 개인정보보호법 등 관계법령이 정하는 바에 따라 지체 없이 조치하겠습니다.
제 6 조 (개인정보의 파기)
① 사무소는 원칙적으로 개인정보의 처리목적이 달성된 경우 등 그 개인정보가 불필요하게 되었을 때에는 지체 없이 해당 개인정보를 파기합니다.
② 사무소가 관계법령의 규정에 따라 개인정보를 파기하지 아니하고 보존하여야 하는 경우에는 해당 개인정보 또는 개인정보파일을 다른 개인정보와 분리해서 저장·관리 합니다.
③ 사무소는 파기사유가 발생한 개인정보를 선정하여 개인정보 보호책임자의 승인을 받아 해당 개인정보를 파기합니다.
④ 사무소는 파기하여야 할 개인정보가 전자적 파일 형태인 경우 복원이 불가능한 방법으로 영구 삭제하며, 이외의 기록물, 인쇄물, 서면, 그 밖의 기록매체인 경우 파쇄 또는 소각합니다.
제 7 조 (의견수렴 및 불만처리)
정보주체는 개인정보 보호 관련 문의, 불만처리, 피해구제 등에 관한 사항을 아래 개인정보 보호책임자 또는 담당부서에 문의하실 수 있습니다. 사무소는 정보주체의 문의에 대하여 신속하고 충분한 답변을 드릴 것입니다.
개인정보 보호 책임자 : 변호사
연락처 : 02.
제 8 조 (개인정보 처리방침의 변경)
사무소의 개인정보 처리방침은 관련 법령, 지침 및 사무소 내부규정에 따라 변경될 수 있으며, 개인정보 처리방침이 변경되는 경우 관련 법령이 정하는 방법에 따라 공개합니다.
제 9 조 (개인정보의 안전성 확보 조치)
사무소는 개인정보의 안전성 확보를 위해 다음과 같은 조치를 취하고 있습니다.
관리적 조치 : 내부관리계획의 수립 및 시행, 구성원에 대한 정기적인 개인정보 보호교육 등
기술적 조치 : 개인정보처리시스템 등의 접근권한 관리, 접근통제시스템 설치, 고유식별정보 등의 암호화, 보안프로그램의 설치 등
물리적 조치 : 전산실, 자료보관실 등 개인정보 보관장소에 대한 접근통제