중대재해처벌법 양벌규정의 합헌적 해석

The concept of vicarious liability involves holding not only the direct offender accountable but also penalizing the entity or person overseeing the context in which the wrongful act occurred. Nevertheless, there has been a trend where various vicarious liability statutes do not offer exceptions for responsible parties, resulting in corporations or individuals facing sanctions even without fault or intent. This has sparked concerns about the constitutionality of such provisions, with critics arguing that they breach the constitutional principle that liability must be based on fault. In 2007, the Constitutional Court recognized this issue and declared a vicarious liability clause unconstitutional, affirming the necessity of the principle of fault-based responsibility in such cases. Later, in 2009, further rulings followed this rationale, invalidating several similar provisions and prompting legislative action to incorporate exemption clauses into vicarious liability regulations. Considering the rationale of the Constitutional Court decisions, when applying the vicarious liability provision of the Serious Accidents Punishment Act to corporations, the principle of responsibility should be adhered to, and whether the corporation acted intentionally or negligently should be the criterion for exemption. Once a corporation appoints a representative, the legal effects of their actions should be attributed to the corporation, and the corporation itself should bear responsibility for the criminal acts of its representative. Therefore, when interpreting the exemption clause in the vicarious liability provisions of the Serious Accident Punishment Act, the subject of the duty of caution and supervision is not the upper-level supervisor of the management manager, whose existence is unclear, but the corporation or institution to which the business manager belongs, and the degree of caution and supervision is determined. It must also be judged based on the corporation or institution.