산업안전보건법위반에 관한 사업주 형사책임의 적정한 규율

The prevention of industrial accidents becomes very important issue in the western hemisphere, but there are few active discussions on the matter in Korea yet, which results in few outcomes of studies. Although government builds up a lot of policies to prevent industrial accidents, the incidences of death do not decrease remarkably lately. The incidences of death increase by and large because of booming conditions of building industries, on the contrary. It requires government's strong decisions and supports to prevent industrial accidents in double respects as shown in the fine example of the United Kingdom. One respect, which is called 'a prior prevention policy', is that government gives enough aids to set up the self-regulatory system and supervises corporate to do the concerned activities correctly. The other respect, which is called 'a posterior prevention policy', is to impose the stick criminal liability on corporate. The joint penal provision in the industrial safety and health act seems to lack effectiveness if it is viewed in the latter respect. This paper proposes 3 revision plans on the industrial safety and health act to reinforce the effectiveness of joint penal provision. Firstly, the industrial safety and health act article 66-1 covers employer's liability only in case of incidences of death but not in case of fatal injury accidents, even though fatal injury accidents have serious negative effect as much as death cases. There should be revision on article 66-1 to impose criminal liability on employers when fatal injury accidents happen. Secondly, the industrial safety and health act has the joint penal provision to regulate the corporate criminal liability, but the amount of fine which is applied to corporate is not enough to arouse corporate´s attention to the calamity of industrial accidents. It requires to raise the amount of fine, considering the instance of Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007 which provides unlimited fine. Thirdly, There is no provision to impose the criminal liability on the offenders, when the offenders do not comply with the Labor Minister's orders(article26 (4)) to remedy serious breach that is the cause of the industrial accidents. The offenders should be brought under the punishment as an instance of Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007. Lastly, I oppose an general introduction of offence by negligence to the industrial safety and health act because of the nature of offence by negligence and the technical traits that the act has. It appears that new government has the plans to reduce the punishment level provided in the industrial safety and health act with the view of regulation reform. This attitude is not considering the realities of law enforcement, in which the offenders are not punished strictly and is against such global trend reinforcing the corporate criminal liability as shown in the example of the United Kingdom. I expect government not to get rid of protective measures in the industrial safety and health act without careful consideration. A great cause of reform does not always prevail.