Whether a person who is not a business operator under Article 71 of the Industrial Safety and Health Act, a joint penal provision, is subject to the penal provision.

Article 67 subparag. 1, Article 23 subparag. 1, Article 69 subparag. 4, and Article 42(1) of the Industrial Safety and Health Act are clear by the provision itself that a business operator is a representative of a corporation, or an agent, employee (including a supervisor), or any other employee of a corporation or an individual commits a violation under Articles 67 through 70 in connection with the business of the corporation or the individual, not only shall such a violator be punished, but also the corporation or the individual be punished by the penal provisions of this Article. The purpose of this provision is to punish both the violator under Articles 67 through 70 of the same Act if the corporation or the individual is not directly involved in the violation under Articles 67 through 70 of the same Act. Thus, the penal provisions of Articles 67 subparag. 1 and 69 subparag. 4 of the same Act are applicable to the business operator.

Article 67 subparag. 1, Article 69 subparag. 4, and Article 71 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act

Supreme Court Decision 82Do2840 delivered on December 27, 1983 (Gong1984, 278), 90Do2597 delivered on February 26, 1991 (Gong191, 1121), 91Do801 Delivered on November 12, 1991 (Gong192, 157)

Defendant 1 and one other

Defendants

Suwon District Court Decision 94No1347 delivered on December 15, 1994

All appeals are dismissed.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

Article 67 subparag. 1, Article 23 subparag. 1, Article 69 subparag. 4, and Article 42(1) of the Industrial Safety and Health Act are clear by the provision itself that a business operator is a representative of a corporation, or an agent, employee (including a supervisor), or other worker of a corporation or an individual commits a violation under Articles 67 through 70 in connection with the business of the corporation or the individual, not only shall such violator be punished, but also the corporation or the individual be punished by the penal provisions of the respective Articles. The purpose of this provision is to punish both the offender and the individual in cases where the corporation or the individual is not directly engaged in a violation of each of the provisions of this Article. Thus, the penal provisions of the respective Articles are applicable to the offender who is not a business operator and the individual (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 91Do801, Nov. 12, 1991).

From the above point of view, the court below recognized the fact that Defendant 1 was the representative director who is responsible for all the safety and health of workers of the above defendant corporation and did not conduct a working environment measurement and did not take protective measures, etc., and it is proper that the above defendant applied and punished the penal provisions of Articles 67 subparag. 1 and 69 subparag. 4 of the same Act by Article 71 of the same Act, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the joint penal provisions such as theory of lawsuit, misconception of facts against the rules of evidence, or the lack of reasoning due to the violation of the rules of evidence. There is no reason to discuss all.

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Park Jong-chul (Presiding Justice)