Open Decision Ledger · Criminal law
Ideal concurrence among safety statutes and negligent homicide
Supreme Court, Dec. 28, 2023, 2023Do12316 (judgment)
Case name: 산업안전보건법위반·업무상과실치사·중대재해처벌등에관한법률위반(산업재해치사)
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
Where the representative director of a company, who was also the management responsible person and the safety and health chief officer, failed to prevent a worker's death through omissions under both statutes at the same time and place, do the resulting offence under the Serious Accidents Act, the Occupational Safety and Health Act violation and negligent homicide stand in ideal concurrence under Article 40 of the Criminal Act?
Holding
Yes. Ideal concurrence under Article 40 of the Criminal Act means one act falling under several offences, and one act is an act evaluated as one in social concepts apart from legal evaluation. Because the two statutes share the ultimate protection of human life and body, the two omissions occurred at the same time and place and failed to prevent the same worker's death, and the safety obligation under Article 4 of the Serious Accidents Act can constitute the duty of care for negligent homicide, the three offences stood in ideal concurrence.
Summary of the holding, verbatim
중대재해처벌법 위반(산업재해치사)죄와 근로자 사망으로 인한 산업안전보건법 위반죄 및 업무상과실치사죄는 상호 간 사회관념상 1개의 행위가 수 개의 죄에 해당하는 경우로서 형법 제40조의 상상적 경합 관계에 있다고 한 사례.
Unofficial English translation
A case where a violation of the Serious Accidents Punishment Act (causing death by industrial accident), a violation of the Occupational Safety and Health Act arising from the death of an employee, and negligent homicide in the course of business, in social conception, constitute a case in which one act falls under several offenses as among one another and thus stand in a relationship of imaginary concurrence under Article 40 of the Criminal Act.
Disposition
Dismissed Stated in the decision
상고를 모두 기각한다.
Unofficial English translation
All appeals are dismissed.
Form of the test
Elements stated Stated in the decision
여기에서 1개의 행위란 법적 평가를 떠나 사회관념상 행위가 사물자연의 상태로서 1개로 평가되는 것을 의미한다.
Unofficial English translation
Here, one act means that, apart from legal evaluation, the act is, in social conception, evaluated as one in its natural state as a thing.
Factors
- 산업안전보건법과 중대재해처벌법의 목적이 완전히 동일하지는 않지만 ‘산업재해 또는 중대재해를 예방’하고 ‘노무를 제공하는 사람 또는 종사자의 안전을 유지·증진하거나 생명과 신체를 보호’하는 것을 목적으로 함으로써 궁극적으로 사람의 생명·신체의 보전을 보호법익으로 한다는 공통점이 있고
- 모두 같은 일시·장소에서 같은 피해자의 사망이라는 결과 발생을 방지하지 못한 부작위에 의한 범행에 해당하여 각 법적 평가를 떠나 사회관념상 1개의 행위로 평가할 수 있으므로
- 근로자 사망으로 인한 산업안전보건법 위반죄와 업무상과실치사죄는 업무상 주의의무가 일치하여 상상적 경합 관계에 있고
- 피고인 을에게 중대재해처벌법 제4조에 따라 부과된 안전 확보의무는 산업안전보건법 제63조에 따라 부과된 안전 조치의무와 마찬가지로 업무상과실치사죄의 주의의무를 구성할 수 있으므로
Unofficial English translation
• Although the purposes of the Occupational Safety and Health Act and the Serious Accidents Punishment Act are not entirely identical, in that both aim at "preventing industrial accidents or serious accidents" and at "maintaining and promoting the safety of persons providing labor or persons engaged, or protecting their lives and bodies," they have in common that the preservation of human life and body is ultimately the protected legal interest, and
• both constitute offenses committed by omission in that they failed to prevent the occurrence of the result of the death of the same victim at the same time and place, and thus, apart from the respective legal evaluations, they may be evaluated as one act in social conception; therefore,
• the violation of the Occupational Safety and Health Act arising from the death of an employee and negligent homicide in the course of business coincide in their duty of care in the course of business and stand in a relationship of imaginary concurrence, and
• the duty to secure safety imposed on Defendant B under Article 4 of the Serious Accidents Punishment Act, like the duty to take safety measures imposed under Article 63 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act, may constitute the duty of care for negligent homicide in the course of business; therefore
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 1987. 2. 24. 선고 86도2731 판결(공1987, 594)
Unofficial English translation
Supreme Court Decision 86Do2731 decided February 24, 1987 (Gong 1987, 594)
Decisions referred to
[1] 대법원 1987. 2. 24. 선고 86도2731 판결(공1987, 594), 대법원 2017. 9. 21. 선고 2017도11687 판결(공2017하, 2058)
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
Where the safety obligation under Article 4 of the Serious Accidents Act and the safety measure obligation under Article 63 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act are breached at different times in relation to the same worker's death, is there still one act in social concepts?
An amendment to the purposes in Article 1 of the Serious Accidents Act or of the Occupational Safety and Health Act would require this entry to be read again, because the common protected legal interest carried the holding. So would a later Supreme Court decision treating omissions at different times as one act, or a record showing that the two statutes demanded distinct measures from Defendant 1.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
7 of 8 axes matched GPT-6 Astra (OpenAI, codex CLI) · 2026-10-25
A reader from another model family (GPT-6 Astra), given the official text but not the primary reading, agreed on 7 of the 8 axes; the readings differed on axis 4 (form of the test).
Axis 4 (Form of the test): Primary “Elements stated” vs Independent “Existing test applied”
The primary reads the Court as stating the one-act requirements for ideal concurrence, while the independent reading applies those standards to the facts of this case.
상호 간 사회관념상 1개의 행위가 수 개의 죄에 해당하는 경우로서 형법 제40조의 상상적 경합 관계에 있다고 한 사례.Raw responses and comparison record: Protocol · Blind readings (JSONL) · Axis comparison (JSONL) · SHA-256 (JSON)
Lower-court contrast & scope of application
Lower-court reading vs. Supreme Court holding
Lower-court context: The Busan High Court, Changwon Division, in its judgment of 23 August 2023 ((Changwon) 2023No167), found Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 company guilty on the charges at issue, as the first instance had done, and treated the offence under the Serious Accidents Act, the Occupational Safety and Health Act violation by a worker's death and negligent homicide as ideal concurrence. The prosecution appealed against the entire judgment below.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court held that the court below was right to find ideal concurrence, since the purposes, protected legal interests and forms of conduct of the two statutes show a common protection of life and body, the two omissions were one act in social concepts, and the safety obligation under Article 4 of the Serious Accidents Act can form the duty of care for negligent homicide. It found no error of law on the concurrence question that affected the judgment, and separately noted that the prosecution had stated no specific ground of appeal on the part of the Occupational Safety and Health Act violation for failure to take safety and health measures. By the unanimous opinion of the participating Justices, all appeals were dismissed.
Distinguishing conditions
- Offences whose protected legal interests do not ultimately converge on the preservation of human life and body, so that no common purpose links them.
- Omissions occurring at different times or places, or directed at preventing different results, so that they are not one act in social concepts.
- A case in which the safety obligation under Article 4 of the Serious Accidents Act does not also constitute the duty of care for negligent homicide.
Record verification notes
Check first whether each count rests on the same omission at the same time and place causing the same worker's death, because the Court relied on the identity of time, place and result. Then confirm that the safety obligation under Article 4 of the Serious Accidents Act and the safety measure obligation under Article 63 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act overlap in forming the duty of care for negligent homicide. Note also that on the part concerning the Occupational Safety and Health Act violation for failure to take safety and health measures, the appeal petition and the statement of reasons carried no specific ground of appeal.
From the official text
Points at issue
[1] 상상적 경합에서 말하는 ‘1개의 행위’의 의미 [2] 피고인 갑 주식회사의 대표이사로서 경영책임자이자 안전보건총괄책임자인 피고인 을이, 산업재해 예방에 필요한 주의의무를 게을리하고 안전조치를 하지 아니하여 피고인 갑 회사와 도급계약을 체결한 관계수급인인 병 사업체 소속 근로자 정이 피고인 갑 회사의 야외작업장에서 중량물 취급 작업인 철제 방열판 보수 작업을 하던 중 크레인 섬유벨트가 끊어지고 방열판이 낙하하면서 정을 덮쳐 사망에 이르게 함과 동시에, 재해예방을 위한 안전보건관리체계의 구축 및 그 이행에 관한 조치를 하지 아니하여 사업장의 종사자 정이 사망하는 중대산업재해에 이르게 하였다는 내용의 업무상과실치사, 산업안전보건법 위반, 중대재해 처벌 등에 관한 법률 위반(산업재해치사)의 공소사실이 제1심 및 원심에서 모두 유죄로 인정된 사안에서, 위 각 법의 목적, 보호법익, 행위태양 등에 비추어 보면, 중대재해 처벌 등에 관한 법률 위반(산업재해치사)죄와 근로자 사망으로 인한 산업안전보건법 위반죄 및 업무상과실치사죄는 상호 간 사회관념상 1개의 행위가 수 개의 죄에 해당하는 경우로서 상상적 경합 관계에 있다고 한 사례
Unofficial English translation
[1] The meaning of "one act" as referred to in imaginary concurrence [2] A case where, in a fact charged in which Defendant B, as the representative director of Defendant A Corporation, being both the person responsible for management and the person in overall charge of safety and health, neglected the duty of care necessary for the prevention of industrial accidents and failed to take safety measures, thereby causing D, an employee of business entity C, a related contractee that had concluded a subcontract with Defendant A Corporation, to be struck by a falling heat sink and killed while D was performing the work of handling heavy objects, namely maintenance work on a steel heat sink, at Defendant A Corporation's outdoor worksite after the crane's fiber belt was severed and the heat sink fell, and at the same time, by failing to take measures concerning the establishment of a safety and health management system for the prevention of disasters and the implementation thereof, caused a serious industrial accident resulting in the death of D, a person engaged in the worksite, where the charges of negligent homicide in the course of business, violation of the Occupational Safety and Health Act, and violation of the Serious Accidents Punishment Act (causing death by industrial accident) were all found guilty at the court of first instance and the court below, in light of the purposes, protected legal interests, and modes of conduct of the respective Acts, the violation of the Serious Accidents Punishment Act (causing death by industrial accident), the violation of the Occupational Safety and Health Act arising from the death of an employee, and negligent homicide in the course of business, in social conception, constitute a case in which one act falls under several offenses as among one another and thus stand in a relationship of imaginary concurrence
Summary of the holding
[1] 상상적 경합은 1개의 행위가 수 개의 죄에 해당하는 경우를 말한다(형법 제40조). 여기에서 1개의 행위란 법적 평가를 떠나 사회관념상 행위가 사물자연의 상태로서 1개로 평가되는 것을 의미한다. [2] 피고인 갑 주식회사의 대표이사로서 경영책임자이자 안전보건총괄책임자인 피고인 을이, 산업재해 예방에 필요한 주의의무를 게을리하고 안전조치를 하지 아니하여 피고인 갑 회사와 도급계약을 체결한 관계수급인인 병 사업체 소속 근로자 정이 피고인 갑 회사의 야외작업장에서 중량물 취급 작업인 철제 방열판 보수 작업을 하던 중 크레인 섬유벨트가 끊어지고 방열판이 낙하하면서 정을 덮쳐 사망에 이르게 함과 동시에, 재해예방을 위한 안전보건관리체계의 구축 및 그 이행에 관한 조치를 하지 아니하여 사업장의 종사자 정이 사망하는 중대산업재해에 이르게 하였다는 내용의 업무상과실치사, 산업안전보건법 위반, 중대재해 처벌 등에 관한 법률(이하 ‘중대재해처벌법’이라 한다) 위반(산업재해치사)의 공소사실이 제1심 및 원심에서 모두 유죄로 인정된 사안에서, ① 산업안전보건법과 중대재해처벌법의 목적이 완전히 동일하지는 않지만 ‘산업재해 또는 중대재해를 예방’하고 ‘노무를 제공하는 사람 또는 종사자의 안전을 유지·증진하거나 생명과 신체를 보호’하는 것을 목적으로 함으로써 궁극적으로 사람의 생명·신체의 보전을 보호법익으로 한다는 공통점이 있고, 이는 사람의 생명·신체의 보전을 보호법익으로 하는 형법상 업무상과실치사상죄도 마찬가지인 점, ② 피고인 을이 안전보건총괄책임자로서 중량물 취급 작업계획서 작성에 관한 조치를 하지 않은 산업안전보건법 위반행위와 경영책임자로서 안전보건관리체계의 구축 및 그 이행에 관한 조치를 하지 않은 중대재해처벌법 위반행위는 모두 같은 일시·장소에서 같은 피해자의 사망이라는 결과 발생을 방지하지 못한 부작위에 의한 범행에 해당하여 각 법적 평가를 떠나 사회관념상 1개의 행위로 평가할 수 있으므로, 중대재해처벌법 위반(산업재해치사)죄와 근로자 사망으로 인한 산업안전보건법 위반죄는 상상적 경합 관계에 있는 점, ③ 근로자 사망으로 인한 산업안전보건법 위반죄와 업무상과실치사죄는 업무상 주의의무가 일치하여 상상적 경합 관계에 있고, 피고인 을에게 중대재해처벌법 제4조에 따라 부과된 안전 확보의무는 산업안전보건법 제63조에 따라 부과된 안전 조치의무와 마찬가지로 업무상과실치사죄의 주의의무를 구성할 수 있으므로 중대재해처벌법 위반(산업재해치사)죄와 업무상과실치사죄 역시 행위의 동일성이 인정되어 상상적 경합 관계에 있는 점 등에 비추어 보면, 중대재해처벌법 위반(산업재해치사)죄와 근로자 사망으로 인한 산업안전보건법 위반죄 및 업무상과실치사죄는 상호 간 사회관념상 1개의 행위가 수 개의 죄에 해당하는 경우로서 형법 제40조의 상상적 경합 관계에 있다고 한 사례.
Order
상고를 모두 기각한다.
Unofficial English translation
All appeals are dismissed.
Provisions referred to
[1] 형법 제40조 [2] 형법 제40조, 제268조, 산업안전보건법 제1조, 제38조, 제39조, 제63조, 제167조 제1항, 제168조 제1호, 제173조, 중대재해 처벌 등에 관한 법률 제1조, 제2조 제1호, 제2호 (가)목, 제7호, 제8호, 제9호, 제4조 제1항 제1호, 제6조 제1항, 제7조 제1호
Read 2026-10-25 · Cross-read 2026-10-25. All quotes matched against the official text. The Chinese-character placeholders the court used for anonymised parties are given in their Korean readings, and parenthetical Chinese-character glosses are omitted.
Every entry is published only after all quotes have been matched character by character against the official text, and audited by an independent second reading from a different model family across all eight axes. Both agreed axes and text-grounded interpretive divergences are recorded openly. The ledger is a research record, not an assessment of the court or advice on any matter.
Back to the ledger