산업안전보건법상 안전관리자의 형사책임 한계에 관한 연구 - 보좌적 지위와 업무상과실치사상 책임 판단기준을 중심으로 -

초록

As complex risk factors such as work at heights, handling of heavy loads, and construction machinery operations increase in modern industrial sites, the likelihood of serious accidents is rising in proportion. Consequently, cases are emerging in which safety managers are held liable for negligent homicide and injury in the course of duty under the Occupational Safety and Health Act. However, the role of a safety manager is limited to assisting the safety and health manager and providing guidance and advice to supervisors; they are not the actual entities responsible for overseeing safety and health affairs at the workplace or directly directing and supervising operations. This study examines the legal status and scope of duties of safety managers, focusing on Article 17 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act and Article 18 of its Enforcement Decree. It also comprehensively reviews the requirements for the establishment of the crime of negligent homicide or injury under Article 268 of the Criminal Act and relevant case law. The results reveal a general trend in which the duty of care is recognized relatively broadly when a safety manager was substantially involved in risk assessments or the preparation and review of work plans, or when they could verify the implementation of safety measures on-site. Conversely, case law also holds that it is difficult to attribute the consequences to the safety manager when they reported or suggested risk factors and fulfilled their duty of guidance and advice within the scope of their authority. Therefore, the criminal liability of a safety manager must be examined not based on the accident outcome or their position, but by comprehensively considering the statutory scope of duties, actual authority, foreseeability and avoidability of the outcome, causality and objective attribution, and the proportionality between authority and responsibility. In particular, the duty of assistance, guidance, and advice must not be expanded to include the duty of work direction and supervision or the duty to prevent the outcome. Accordingly, this study aims to examine the limits of criminal liability for safety managers from legislative and interpretive perspectives. First, from a legislative standpoint, the enactment of Article 18, Paragraph 6 of the Enforcement Decree of the Occupational Safety and Health Act could be considered to require safety managers to report or make recommendations in an objectively verifiable manner when they discover hazardous or dangerous factors or areas for improvement, and to verify whether such recommendations have been implemented. Additionally, Article 18-2 of the same Enforcement Decree should be enacted to determine the liability of safety managers within the scope of their statutory duties and actual authority, and to establish criteria that distinguish their liability from that of safety and health management officers and supervisors. From an interpretive perspective, if a safety manager has faithfully carried out recommendations for improvement and demands for correction—in addition to guidance and advice—within the scope of their role, caution should be exercised in immediately attributing liability for professional negligence to the safety manager solely on the grounds that the safety and health management officer or supervisor failed to take necessary measures after an accident. Ultimately, the criminal liability of a safety manager must be determined based on actual authority, the possibility of control over risks, and the possibility of avoiding the consequences, and must be reasonably limited in accordance with the proportional relationship between authority and responsibility.

키워드