중대재해 처벌 등에 관한 법률상 안전보건확보의무

In the past, when an industrial accident occurred, the most basic means of relieving damage were to be held liable for damages in a civil lawsuit or to be punished for criminal negligence resulting in manslaughter. However, in the case of occupational negligence causing death, in many cases, relatively light punishment such as probation or fines was given, considering that it was a negligent crime. With the revision of the Occupational Safety and Health Act in 2006, new regulations were introduced to impose heavy criminal punishment in cases where an employee's death occurs due to an employer's violation of safety and health measures, but in practice, it has been treated as a type of occupational manslaughter. Meanwhile, many efforts have been made to overcome the limitations of the doctrine of fault liability, which states that even if a worker suffers an industrial accident due to poor working conditions or work environment, it is difficult to receive compensation for damages if the employer cannot prove negligence. It is an industrial accident compensation system that allows users to receive a certain amount of compensation from the employer without requiring proof of negligence. This developed into an industrial accident compensation insurance system and contributed greatly to reducing blind spots in damage relief. However, there is a risk that the introduction of strict liability and compulsory insurance will cause a kind of moral hazard that causes employers to rely solely on industrial accident compensation insurance rather than making efforts to prevent industrial accidents. In fact, in the event of an industrial accident, there are many cases where the employer resolves the civil liability issue by paying an additional settlement amount after processing the industrial accident insurance 중대재해 처벌 등에 관한 법률상 안전보건확보의무 | 고흥215 and reaching a civil/criminal agreement, and then submits the matter to the criminal case investigation or trial process and is lightly punished. In this situation, the Serious Accident Punishment Act, enacted in 2021, imposed a duty to secure safety and health on business owners or responsible managing officers in order to prevent serious disasters and protect the lives and bodies of citizens and workers. It stipulates very heavy civil and criminal liability if a serious accident is caused by violating the duty to secure safety and health intentionally or through gross negligence. The duty to secure safety and health is a new concept that is different from the 'employer's duty to consider safety', which is understood as a duty related to an employment contract under the Civil Act and the Labor Act, or the 'employer's duty to take safety and health measures' stipulated in the Occupational Safety and Health Act. Imposing the duty to secure safety and health can be an opportunity to force management to actually devote more attention and effort to preventing industrial accidents. On the other hand, the duty to secure safety and health is abstract and general, so there is a risk that management will actually be held responsible for the results despite sufficient efforts to prevent disasters. In this article, we reviewed the concept, legal nature, implementation entity, main contents, effects of violation of the duty, and whether it complies with the principles of clarity and proportionality in relation to the duty to secure safety and health. From a legislative perspective, there is a need to more clearly define the duty of action that constitutes the duties to secure safety and health, and exclude from the list of duty of action those types of duty that are less clear and less likely to cause serious consequences. In addition, in line with the principle of 2023 변호사(제56집) 216 proportionality, there is a need to consider ways to diversify sanctions, such as subdividing criminal punishment regulations or introducing fines depending on the type or degree of violation of the duty to secure safety and health.