중대재해처벌법 제정과정에서의 법적 쟁점과 남겨진 과제

The Serious Accidents bill proposed by lawmakers consisted of contents that were not in accordance with safety principles and legal rules, were far from the effectiveness of accident prevention, and lacked universality and systematicity from a comparative legal point of view. In particular, the principle of criminal justice, such as the principle of clarity, was an expression of the principle of rule of law and an iron law that should be followed for the effectiveness of the law, but all proposed bills were contrary to constitutional principles, such as the principle of clarity and the principle of prohibiting over-measures.
Despite the fact that many unconstitutional parts have been screened out through the review of the Legislation and Judiciary Committee, there are still many legal problems, including constitutional violations, as a result of a short review of the bill.
If Act on the Punishment, etc. of Serious Accidents(It is called the Serious Accidents Act below) had been limited to a corporation (organization) based on the premise that it differs from the Occupational Safety and Health Act, it would have had some meaning, but the legislation would have more adverse effects than net functions.
Like advanced foreign countries, I think it is urgent and important to normalize the Occupational Safety and Health Act so that it can serve as a basic law for occupational safety and health in criminal punishment.
In the case of a bill that has a significant impact on the identity of corporate management and senior managers and is unprecedented in terms of composition and punishment, a careful approach is indispensable, including close investigation, review, listening to various opinions and sufficient discussions. It is necessary to clearly recognize through this process of enacting the Serious Accidents Act that the effectiveness cannot be guaranteed without going through this process and that it can unintentionally cause a lot of costs and confusion.