The Supreme Court has drawn up sentencing guidelines recommending prison terms of up to 15 years for business owners or chief executives when a worker dies in a serious industrial accident, depending on how severely they breached their duty to ensure safety and health.
The Supreme Court's Sentencing Commission, chaired by Lee Dong-won, said on the 22nd that it held its 148th plenary meeting on the 21st to review sentencing guidelines for negligent homicide and injury, industrial safety and health crimes and serious accident crimes, along with a revised draft of guidelines for traffic offenses.
Sentencing guidelines are recommended punishment ranges set by the Supreme Court for each type of crime. They serve as a reference for judges when handing down rulings. While not legally binding, they carry the force of a recommendation.
For serious industrial accidents resulting in injury, the commission set the base sentencing range at one year to two years and six months. The mitigated range is six months to one year and six months, and the aggravated range is two to five years. For serious industrial accidents resulting in death, the base range was set at one year and six months to four years. Notably, the lower end of the base range was set at 18 months, higher than the one-year statutory minimum. The mitigated and aggravated ranges are 10 months to two years and three to 10 years, respectively.
If an offender commits the same crime again within five years of a finalized sentence for a serious industrial accident crime, the upper and lower ends of the sentencing range will be increased by 1.5 times. In addition, for serious industrial accidents resulting in death, the upper end of the recommended range in the aggravated bracket can be raised by up to half when multiple special aggravating factors are present, a special adjustment that allows a maximum term of 15 years given that the aggravated range tops out at 10 years. The measure is intended to ensure strict sentencing in cases of high illegality, such as severe breaches of safety and health obligations or accidents with multiple victims.
The commission set a relatively wide sentencing range for deaths from serious industrial accidents, noting that the gravity of such offenses can vary widely depending on the scale and extent of harm, the degree of the breach of safety and health obligations and the specific circumstances of the accident.
"We set the lower end of the mitigated range in order to serve the purpose of the legislation and allow for severe punishment, while also reflecting the wide spectrum of violations," the commission said. "We recommended strict sentencing in cases of high illegality, such as serious breaches of safety and health obligations or accidents with multiple victims."
The commission also offered specific examples of what constitutes a "severe breach of safety and health obligations," which it designated as a special aggravating factor. These include cases where the need to draw up and carry out improvement measures was clear because opinions or reports had been submitted about the hazard that caused the accident, yet the company failed to act or dismissed those opinions and reports, and cases where a company took no action or only nominal action despite repeated corrective orders or recommendations from central government agencies.
Also covered are cases where a company subcontracted work to a third party at a strikingly low price that did not reflect the minimum cost needed to ensure the safety and health of workers, set an excessively short construction period that made it difficult to carry out safety and health measures, or cut or diverted budgets needed for safety and health personnel, facilities and equipment.
On the other hand, the commission listed as special mitigating factors cases where a victim entered a site knowing it carried a risk of accidents, where a victim switched off an essential safety device or unfastened a safety hook simply because it was inconvenient, and where a co-worker's negligence caused the accident or worsened the harm in a way that was difficult to anticipate. The commission judged that there are grounds to take the circumstances of such accidents into account.
The commission also designated a victim's wish not to see the offender punished, or substantive recovery of damages, as special mitigating factors. Effective measures to prevent a recurrence were set as a general mitigating factor. "We decided to reflect in sentencing cases that go beyond simply correcting violations to actually carrying out effective measures to prevent recurrence," the commission said. "In the criteria for suspended sentences, we elevated this to a major favorable factor, designing an incentive structure that encourages recurrence-prevention measures from the preventive perspective of sentencing."
For offenders who commit another serious industrial accident crime within five years of a finalized conviction for such a crime, the upper and lower ends of the sentencing range will also be increased by 1.5 times.
Separately, the commission reviewed sentencing for obstruction of a breath test and set guidelines identical to those for refusing a breath test. The base range was set at eight months to two years in prison or a fine of 7 million to 15 million won ($5,000 to $10,800), the aggravated range at one year and six months to four years, and the mitigated range at six months to one year and two months or a fine of 3 million to 10 million won ($2,200 to $7,200).
The commission also set sentencing for repeat drunk driving offenses committed within 10 years. Citing the gravity of the crime, it recommended that prison terms be available even in the mitigated bracket. In particular, it provided that only prison terms may be imposed for drunk driving with a blood alcohol level of 0.2% or higher, and for refusal or obstruction of a breath test that falls within the aggravated bracket. Most of these sentencing factors and the criteria for suspended sentences were made identical to those for ordinary drunk driving and unlicensed driving offenses, except that "crime committed to make a living," a general mitigating factor previously applied only to unlicensed driving, was excluded.
Based on this revised draft, the commission plans to finalize a version shortly, gather opinions through public hearings and then vote on the final sentencing guidelines.
The commission also plans to hold its next meeting on Nov. 6 to review a revised draft of sentencing guidelines for violations of the lending business act and the debt collection act.
