인문학
사회과학
자연과학
공학
의약학
농수해양학
예술체육학
복합학
DBpia AI
AI 에이전트
AI 아이디어
AI 리더
AI 뷰어
Citeasy
크롬 서지관리 다운로드
지원사업
학술연구/단체지원/교육 등 연구자 활동을 지속하도록 DBpia가 지원하고 있어요.
커뮤니티
연구자들이 자신의 연구와 전문성을 널리 알리고, 새로운 협력의 기회를 만들 수 있는 네트워킹 공간이에요.
초록·키워드
In the case of an industrial accident, the employer"s criminal responsibility depends on whether he has implemented the safety and health measures stipulated in the Occupational Safety And Health Act. In related legal disputes, it is important to interpret the ‘Rules on Occupational Safety and Health Standards’, which stipulates the specific details of the employer"s obligation to take safety and health measures.
Traditionally, courts have interpreted the above rules strictly and have broadly recognized employers’ discretion in the choice of safety and health measures. According to this case law, when an employer formally implements safety and health measures, it is difficult to impose criminal responsibility on the employer, even if the measures do not match the reality of the workplace and have no actual accident prevention effect. This case law was criticized for the possibility that the safety of workers could be neglected, when the choice was connected with the business interests of the company.
The Supreme Court Decision 2020Do3996 Decided September 30, 2021 reflected the above criticisms and revised the interpretation standards for safety and health measures to reflect the reality and characteristics of workplaces. The above Decision was clarified that employers should reflect the characteristics of their workplaces in detail and implement the contents of the ‘Rules on Occupational Safety and Health Standards’. In other words, it required employers to consider not only the ‘objective risk’ but also the ‘industrial situational risk’ of the workplace.
Traditionally, courts have interpreted the above rules strictly and have broadly recognized employers’ discretion in the choice of safety and health measures. According to this case law, when an employer formally implements safety and health measures, it is difficult to impose criminal responsibility on the employer, even if the measures do not match the reality of the workplace and have no actual accident prevention effect. This case law was criticized for the possibility that the safety of workers could be neglected, when the choice was connected with the business interests of the company.
The Supreme Court Decision 2020Do3996 Decided September 30, 2021 reflected the above criticisms and revised the interpretation standards for safety and health measures to reflect the reality and characteristics of workplaces. The above Decision was clarified that employers should reflect the characteristics of their workplaces in detail and implement the contents of the ‘Rules on Occupational Safety and Health Standards’. In other words, it required employers to consider not only the ‘objective risk’ but also the ‘industrial situational risk’ of the workplace.
#산업안전보건법
#「산업안전보건기준에 관한 규칙」
#산업재해
#안전·보건조치
#위험성 평가
#객체적 리스크
#사업장 상황적 리스크
#관리적 리스크
#the Occupational Safety And Health Act
#Rules on Occupational Safety and Health Standards
#industrial accident
#Safety and health measures
#risk assessment
#objective risk
#industrial situational risk
#industrial managerial risk
본문·목차
인공지능 문자 인식 모델을 통해 추출된 텍스트로, 일부 오타나 오류가 포함될 수 있으나 지속적으로 개선 중입니다.
오류를 발견하셨다면 해당 부분을 드래그한 후 ' 를 통해 신고해주세요.
오류를 발견하셨다면 해당 부분을 드래그한 후 ' 를 통해 신고해주세요.
최근 본 자료 전체보기
