Sentencing guidelines will be drawn up to determine the level of punishment for violations of the Serious Accidents Punishment Act.
The Supreme Court Sentencing Commission said on the 13th that it held a plenary meeting on the 12th and deliberated and voted to add sentencing guidelines for crimes violating the Serious Accidents Punishment Act as a task for the second half of the 10th Sentencing Commission (April 2026–April 2027).
The commission said it comprehensively considered public interest, the seriousness of the crimes, practical needs, and the frequency of offenses.
If a death occurs in a serious accident, the business owner or the person responsible for management is subject to at least one year in prison or a fine of up to 10 years.
Earlier, the Korea Steel CEO received a finalized sentence of one year in prison in Dec. 2023 over a subcontractor worker's death.
The Lee Jae-myung administration has taken a hard line on serious accidents since taking office.
At the meeting, the commission also deliberated and voted on draft sentencing guidelines for money laundering crimes, gambling and game-related crimes, and securities and financial crimes.
In the draft, sentencing guidelines were strengthened to recommend up to life imprisonment, depending on the amount of illicit gains, for "crimes undermining the fairness of the capital market," such as using undisclosed material information or manipulating prices, and the sentencing ranges for gambling and game-related crimes will also be raised in light of the social harm, including the addictiveness of online gambling, and public sentiment.
For money laundering crimes, the sentencing ranges were set by comprehensively considering statutory penalties, the nature of the offenses, and sentencing practice.
The commission also approved a draft of the "sentencing guidelines reflecting the overhaul of sentencing factors related to victim recovery," which had been previously reviewed, and decided to solicit opinions.
In light of criticism of some cases that treated the payment of state relief funds to victims as a favorable sentencing factor equivalent to compensation, the commission stipulated that, in principle, receiving relief funds does not constitute "substantial victim recovery."