3 years since the Serious Accidents Punishment Act; What has changed? (Jun.2025)

Evaluation and future challenges of the Serious Accidents Punishment Act

Sook-kyun Lee

Korean Institute of Labor Safety and Health

Translated by Michelle Jang

2025

The “Act on the Punishment of Serious Accidents” (hereinafter referred to as the “Serious Accidents Punishment Act”) was introduced multiple times during the 19th and 20th National Assembly sessions, but it was repeatedly discarded without even being deliberated, as each session ended. On April 30, 2020, a devastating fire at the Icheon Logistics Center claimed the lives of 38 workers. In response, 136 civic organizations united on May 17 to launch the People’s Campaign for the Enactment of the Serious Accidents Corporate Punishment Act. In order to change the grim reality where six to seven workers were dying at work every single day, they collected over 100,000 signatures through a national petition and held sit-ins in front of the National Assembly despite the freezing cold. Bereaved families of industrial accident victims undertook a hunger strike lasting more than a month. It was only after these collective efforts that the Act was finally passed — on January 8, 2021.

The Serious Accidents Punishment Act, enacted through this process, came into effect on January 27, 2022. As of January 27, 2024, its scope was expanded to include workplaces with five or more employees. Now in its fourth year of enforcement, this article reflects on whether the Act is being implemented in line with its original intent and examines the challenges that lie ahead.

Investigations and prosecutions have been marked by secrecy and delayed responses

From the enactment of the law until the first half of 2024, the Ministry of Employment and Labor investigated 717 cases of suspected violations of the Serious Accidents Punishment Act. However, only 223 of these cases were fully investigated — including just 128 that were forwarded to the prosecution — resulting in a case processing rate of only 31%. As of January 21, 2025, the prosecution had filed indictments in only 74 cases. The average time from the date of the incident to indictment was found to be 16 months, with one case taking as long as 31 months. More concerning, however, is that the Ministry’s accident investigation reports, case investigations, and referrals — as well as indictment decisions by prosecutors — are withheld from even the bereaved families, based on the claim that disclosure could influence the investigation or trial.

This is not just a problem for the Ministry of Employment and Labor and the prosecution. Of the 74 cases indicted by the prosecution as of January 2025, 35 cases (43%) had received trial court or higher-level rulings, but only one case has been finalized by the Supreme Court. In contrast, the Aricel fire disaster, which occurred on June 24, 2024, resulted in indictments just three months after the incident. In fact, it has been confirmed that when the Ministry and prosecution show determination or when cases attract significant public attention, they can partially disclose investigation results and expedite proceedings. However, most cases are taking longer than in the early stages of the law’s implementation. Since the authorities continue to adhere to a principle of nondisclosure, it is urgent to address this issue and find a resolution.

The problem of biased judgments that fail to reflect the intent of the law

On May 20, the Jeonju District Court Gunsan Branch, Criminal Division 3 (Presiding Judge Chang-gu Ji), acquitted the representative and site manager of Samhwa Construction, the general contractor responsible for a serious accident at a sewage pipe burial construction site in Gunsan, while sentencing Samhwa Construction Corporation to a fine of 4 million won (approximately USD$3,000). In contrast, the site manager of the subcontractor was sentenced to eight months in prison, suspended for two years, for violations of the Occupational Safety and Health Act and negligent homicide, and the subcontractor corporation was fined 5 million won (approximately USD$3,700). This marks the fifth not-guilty verdict at the trial court level since the enactment of the Serious Accidents Punishment Act.

The prosecution found that the serious accident occurred due to the general contractor’s failure to install ground collapse prevention measures, restrict access to the excavation site, and prepare a work plan. As a result, the company was indicted for violating Article 4, Clause 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Serious Accidents Punishment Act, which mandates establishing procedures for identifying and addressing hazardous and dangerous factors. However, the court ruled that the general contractor had not violated the Act, citing its implementation of a risk assessment. It also narrowly interpreted the scope of responsibility for contractors, concluding that since the subcontractor was the actual “employer” directing the worker at the time of the accident, the general contractor’s representative and site manager were not liable for violating safety obligations. This ruling has been widely criticized as a biased judgment that disregards the intent behind the full revision of the Occupational Safety and Health Act and the enactment of the Serious Accidents Punishment Act. What is more troubling is that, among the 35 cases adjudicated as of January this year, 94.3% resulted in guilty verdicts, yet only 5 led to actual prison sentences. Most sentences have been less than one year—the statutory minimum under the Act—leading to suspended sentences and what many see as lenient punishment. Such biased rulings, which effectively undermine the Serious Accidents Punishment Act, are becoming major obstacles to the prevention of serious industrial accidents.

The worksite is gradually changing.

The results of the “Study on the Effectiveness of the Serious Accidents Punishment Act,” conducted by the Democratic Labor Institute in July 2024 across five selected workplaces in the manufacturing, service, construction, and public sectors, indicate that the enactment of the Act has led to positive changes on the ground.

The study found that managers’ awareness of occupational safety and health has significantly improved, leading to measures such as reinforcement of safety and health departments, strengthening of authority, increased budgets, enhanced safety and health education, improvements in the working environment, better coordination of safety and health systems between contractors and subcontractors, and greater incorporation of labor union input.

Similar changes were reflected in survey results from 160 labor safety representatives and 205 management safety and health officers.

The study concluded that the Serious Accidents Punishment Act has played a significant role in driving companies to proactively build and implement preventive safety and health management systems.

However, despite these positive developments, it also confirmed that labor union participation and involvement in safety and health management remains limited. This highlights the urgent need to expand the meaningful involvement of labor unions moving forward.

The way forward in the fourth year of the law’s implementation

In addition to the issues discussed above, the implementation of the Serious Accidents Punishment Act has revealed numerous other problems. These must be urgently addressed and improved in ways that align with the original intent of the law.

Tackling these challenges is essential for the reduction and prevention of serious accidents, and cannot be avoided.

It is therefore crucial not to fall into the trap of the so-called “uselessness of the Serious Accidents Punishment Act” argument, which is frequently raised by the business community and conservative opposition parties.

At the same time, it is important to highlight the goals that the workers’ health rights movement should aim to achieve going forward.

First, efforts must be made to guarantee workers’ right to know and to meaningfully expand their right to participate.

The Study on the Effectiveness of the Serious Accidents Punishment Act also highlights that labor union participation and involvement in workplace safety and health management systems remains very limited. The “self-regulatory safety paradigm” that the government has continuously emphasized can only function effectively when labor and management build and operate a preventive safety and health system on an equal footing. Therefore, it is essential to establish and improve legal frameworks that ensure meaningful participation by labor unions at the workplace level. In addition, labor unions and civil society organizations must be guaranteed the right to participate in the investigation of serious accidents, and accident investigation reports should be disclosed transparently. Only through the joint identification of the root causes of serious accidents and the development of countermeasures can safe workplaces and a safe society be created for workers and citizens.

A national-level approach to risk assessment must be actively pursued.

On May 22, the Ministry of Employment and Labor announced that, when comparing the number of accidental deaths (based on the approval criteria for bereaved families’ benefits) in 2022 and 2024 at workplaces that received the Ministry’s risk assessment consulting and safety and health management system consulting in 2023, the number of accidental deaths decreased by 66.7%. Although a more detailed review is necessary, the survey results suggest that small workplaces (with fewer than 50 employees), where over 60% of major accidents occur, are in urgent need of proper risk assessments to identify and improve hazardous and risky factors on-site. Moreover, establishing a safety and health management system will significantly contribute to reducing and preventing industrial accidents, including serious accidents. To this end, it is essential to move beyond the conventional support methods targeting small workplaces and actively promote risk assessments at the national level, while expanding and strengthening support systems for improving hazardous and risky workplace factors.

Prevention must be driven by judgments and penalties that align with the intent of the law.

We must clearly expose who is truly distorting and undermining the intent and effectiveness of the Serious Accidents Punishment Act, in response to those who argue the law is useless due to its perceived lack of impact on preventing serious accidents. Furthermore, labor unions and civil society must work together—not only at individual workplaces but also across industrial complexes, regions, and society at large—to address serious accident cases. From investigation to prosecution, we must actively raise issues and intervene. Only through such efforts can we push back against the practices of corporations and the government that prioritize corporate profits and national economic interests over the lives and safety of workers and citizens.