인문학
사회과학
자연과학
공학
의약학
농수해양학
예술체육학
복합학
DBpia AI
AI 에이전트
AI 아이디어
AI 리더
AI 뷰어
Citeasy
크롬 서지관리 다운로드
개인구독
소속 기관이 없으신 경우, 개인 정기구독을 하시면 저렴하게
논문을 무제한 열람 이용할 수 있어요.
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.
논문 기본 정보
- 자료유형
- 학위논문
- 저자정보
- 지도교수
- 정진우
- 발행연도
- 2024
- 저작권
- 서울과학기술대학교 논문은 저작권에 의해 보호받습니다.
이용수42
초록· 키워드
상세정보 수정요청해당 페이지 내 제목·저자·목차·페이지정보가 잘못된 경우 알려주세요!
노동·시민단체는 세월호 참사 사고, 가습기 살균제 피해, 현대제철 질식 사 망사고, 태안 화력발전소 김용균 사망사고, 경기도 이천시 택배 물류센터 화재 참사를 겪으며 노동자와 시민의 생명, 보건상의 위해(危害)를 일으킨 책임자 처벌을 위한 법률제정의 필요성을 제기하였다. 최근 우리 사회는 중대사망사 고를 개인의 실수에 의한 사고가 아니라 기업경영자의 안전 준수 의지 결여, 기업운영 시스템의 부재, 안전을 등한시하는 작업환경, 기업 내 위험관리시스 템의 부재, 이윤 중심의 기업문화 등 ‘기업의 조직적인 범죄’로 인식하고 있다. 현대의 기업은 다양한 직무와 직급으로 세분화되고, 업무에 대한 책임도 분 권화되고 위임되는 구조로서 일반적으로 기업 경영자에게 사망사고에 대한 책 임과 형법상의 처벌을 온전히 묻기 어려운 구조이다. 따라서 산업현장에서 발 생하는 대부분의 중대사망사고의 경우 경영자는 처벌하지 못하고 현장 노동자 또는 중간관리자에게 책임을 묻는 경우가 많았다. 이처럼 산업현장에서 중대 사망사고가 발생하여도 기업의 책임 있는 사람, 특히 원청회사의 경영자에 대 한 처벌이 제대로 되지 않아 왔고, 중대재해를 발생시킨 기업 경영책임자에 대한 처벌수준이 낮다는 인식이 강하게 작용하여 중대재해 처벌 등에 관한 법 률(이하 ‘중대재해처벌법’이라 한다)이 제정되었다. 국회는 2021년 1월 8일 제383회 국회 본회의에서 중대재해 처벌 등에 관한 법률을 통과시켰고, 2022년 1월 27일부터 시행되었다. 중대재해처벌법은 공포 후 3년의 유예기간이 종료되는 2024년 1월 27일부터 50인 미만 사업 또는 사업 장으로 확대·적용된다. 그러나 최근 정부와 여당은 중대재해처벌법을 2년 추가 유예하는 것에 합의 하였다. 정부와 여당의 입장은 아직 중소기업은 중대재해처벌법 이행을 위한 준비가 안되어 있다고 판단하였다. 반면, 야당과 노동단체는 이에 대해 반대의 입장을 나타내고 있다. 더 이상 산업현장에서 죽어가는 노동자가 있어서는 안 된다는 입장이다. 야당이 반대 입장으로 돌아서면서 국회 처리는 불투명해졌다. 우리나라 기업의 98%가 중소기업이고 이중 81%가 50인 미만 중소기업이다. 50인 미만의 중소기업은 유예기간이 추가로 연장되지 않는 이상 2024년 1월27 일부터 중대재해처벌법의 적용을 받게 된다. 그런데 영세한 중소기업이 중대 재해처벌법의 규정된 안전보건 확보의무를 모두 이행하여 사망사고를 예방할 조 치를 할 수 있을지 우려 섞인 시각이 많다. 한편, 우리나라 산업 중 반도체산업은 세계적인 수준이지만 반도체산업 이면 에는 영세한 중소기업이 존재한다. 반도체기업 중 2~3차 협력사의 경우 50인 미 만의 영세한 중소기업이 많이 있는데 이들 회사가 중대재해처벌법의 안전보건 확보 의무를 이행할 수 있을지 의문이다. 본 연구는 반도체장비사 중 50인 미만의 직원을 채용중인 중소기업의 경영 책임자를 중심으로 중대재해처벌법의 인식과 의무이행 과정에서의 문제점을 질적연구방법으로 연구하였다. 중소기업 경영책임자 심층면담을 통해 확인된 내용을 분석하여 다음과 같은 문제점을 도출하였다. 첫째, 50인 미만 사업 또는 사업장의 경영책임자는 중대재해처벌법에 대해 서 잘 모르고, 법규 준수의지도 부족하였다. 중소기업 경영책임자는 중대재해 처벌법이 현재 대기업에게 시행 중인 점은 알고는 있었지만, 2024년 1월 27일 부터 50인 미만 중소기업으로 확대·적용되는 점은 모르고 있었고, 안전보건 확보의무의 주요 내용도 알지 못하였다. 둘째, 50인 미만 사업 또는 사업장의 경영책임자는 중소기업이 안전보건 확 보의무를 우선순서 없이 모두 이행하는 것은 현실적으로 이행이 불가능하다고 했다. 중대재해처벌법 시행령 제4조와 제5조에서는 경영책임자의 안전보건 확 보의무가 명시되어 있는데 영세한 중소기업의 현실 여건상 모든 의무이행은 불가능하다고 했다. 셋째, 50인 미만 사업 또는 사업장은 중대재해처벌법 이행을 위한 인력이 부족했다. 50인 미만의 중소기업은 현장 작업자의 충원도 어려운 상태에서 안 전 업무만을 전담으로 하는 인력충원에 대해서 어려움을 호소했다. 안전전담 인력 부족으로 비안전부서 인력이 안전업무를 대신하는 경우도 있다. 넷째, 50인 미만 사업 또는 사업장의 경영책임자는 중대사망사고 발생 시 사고의 인과관계를 따지지 않고 경영책임자만을 강력하게 처벌하는 것은 부당 하다고 했다. 50인 미만 근로자가 일하는 산업현장은 경영책임자와 근로자가 같은 장소에서 작업을 하는 경우도 있고, 사고발생의 원인이 근로자에게도 일 부 있을 텐데 경영책임자에게 온전히 책임을 묻고 처벌하는 것은 부당하다고 했다. 중대재해처벌법이 확대·적용됨에 따라 중소기업 경영책임자가 가지고 있는 인식과 의무이행 과정에서 도출된 문제점에 대한 개선방안을 제시하고자 한다. 첫째, 50인 미만 중소기업 경영책임자의 안전의식과 안전철학을 함양시키도 록 경영책임자를 위한 중대재해처벌법 교육과정을 수립해야 한다. 중대재해처벌법 교육 과정을 통해 법의 취지, 목적, 의무이행 등 세부적인 내 용을 이해시켜야 한다. 안전보건 조직의 구성, 안전보건 경영방침의 수립, 안 전보건 예산의 수립, 안전보건관리자 평가 등 안전직무를 직접 수행하고 이끌 어 갈 수 있도록 안전 리더십 확립을 위한 과정개발이 시급하다. 둘째, 우선순서 없이 모두 이행해야 하는 안전보건 확보의무를 중대사망 예 방과 종사자 생명보호 관점에서 재정립해야 한다. 중대재해처벌법은 산업안전 보건법의 의무이행과 중복되는 점이 많다. 중복되는 것은 산업안전보건법에서 규율하고 그 외의 안전보건 확보의무는 ‘중요도’와 ‘우선순위’에 따라 재 정립하여야 한다. 중소기업에서 실천가능한 의무이행을 우선순위에 따라 이행 하여야 한다. 셋째, 정부는 안전보건 인력 공급을 확대하고 인력채용시 인건비 지원과 같 은 재정지원을 하여야 한다. 산업현장에서 잔뼈가 굵은 근로자가 조건에 부합 하는 경우 현장 안전관리 업무를 할 수 있도록 제도를 마련하고, 50인 미만 중소기업이 안전보건 업무 전담 인력을 채용하면 인건비를 지원해야 한다. 넷째, 중대재해처벌법의 형사처벌 하한형 설정은 개정되어야 한다. 산업현장 에서의 사망사고가 다른 형사범보다 더 비난 가능성이 높고, 강력한 처벌을 해야 하는지 논리적 근거가 빈약하다. 현대기업은 다양한 조직과 직무로 나뉘 고 권한도 분권화되어 온전히 한 사람에게만 책임을 지울 수 없는 구조이다. 그리고 산업재해 사망사고는 근로자 측에도 부분적으로 잘못이 있는 것이 통 례이므로 중대사망사고가 발생하였다고 모든 책임을 경영책임자에게 지우게 하는 것은 합리적이지 못하다. 사망사고에 대한 책임은 엄중히 묻되, 과도한 처벌로 법의 균형성과 정당성이 훼손되어서는 안 된다.
Labor and civic organizations have raised the need for the establishment of laws aimed at holding accountable those responsible for major accidents such as the Sewol ferry disaster, the humidifier disinfectant-related damages, fatalities at Hyundai Steel, the death of Kim Yong-kyun at the Taean Thermal Power Plant, and the tragic fire at a parcel delivery center in Icheon, Gyeonggi Province. Observing the threats posed to the lives and health of workers and citizens in these incidents, they highlight the necessity for legislation to hold the responsible parties accountable. Recently, our society recognizes major disasters not merely as accidents caused by individual errors but as ''organizational crimes'' within corporations. These are characterized by the absence of safety compliance by corporate management, deficiencies in corporate operational systems, neglect of safety in the working environment, lack of risk management systems within corporations, and a profit-centric corporate culture.
Modern corporations are highly segmented into various roles and hierarchies, and responsibilities for tasks are decentralized and delegated. Consequently, it becomes challenging to directly attribute responsibility for fatal accidents and impose legal penalties solely on corporate executives. Therefore, in the case of most major fatal accidents occurring in industrial sites, there has been a tendency to hold accountable frontline workers or middle managers rather than penalizing the executives. Consequently, despite the occurrence of major fatal accidents in industrial sites, there has been a lack of proper accountability for individuals in charge within the company, especially the executives of the principal company. The prevailing perception that the level of punishment for corporate management responsible for causing major accidents is inadequate has strongly influenced the need for the enactment of legislation regarding penalties for Serious Accident Punishment (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Serious Accident Punishment Act’).
The National Assembly passed the Act on the Penalty for Serious Accident Punishment Act on January 8, 2021, during the 383rd National Assembly plenary session, and it came into effect on January 27, 2022. The Act expands its coverage to businesses or workplaces with fewer than 50 employees starting from January 27, 2024, after the expiration of a three-year grace period since its enactment.
Given that 98% of businesses in South Korea are small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), with 81% of them having fewer than 50 employees, these SMEs will immediately fall under the jurisdiction of the Act once the grace period ends. However, there are doubts about whether these small-scale SMEs can fully comply with the safety and health obligations stipulated in the Act to take preventive measures against fatal accidents.
Furthermore, while South Korea''s semiconductor industry operates at a global level, beneath this industry lie numerous small-scale SMEs. Many second and third-tier subcontractors in the semiconductor industry consist of small companies with fewer than 50 employees, raising uncertainties about their ability to fulfill the safety and health obligations mandated by the Act.
This study employs qualitative research methods to investigate the perceptions of management executives in small-scale SMEs employing fewer than 50 workers in the semiconductor equipment industry regarding Serious Accident Punishment Act and the challenges they face in fulfilling its obligations.
Through in-depth interviews with management executives of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), the following issues were identified and analyzed:
Firstly, managers of businesses or workplaces with fewer than 50 employees demonstrated a lack of understanding of Serious Accident Punishment Act and lacked determination for legal compliance. Although these SME managers were aware of the current implementation of the Act, they were unaware that its expansion to SMEs with fewer than 50 employees would take effect from January 27, 2024. Moreover, they had little knowledge of the key obligations regarding ensuring safety and health.
Secondly, managers of businesses or workplaces with fewer than 50 employees expressed that expecting all obligations related to safety and health to be fulfilled by small-scale SMEs without any prioritization was unrealistic. While the Act specifies the obligation of ensuring safety and health for management executives in Article 4 and Article 5 of the enforcement decree, these SMEs stated that due to the practical conditions of small-scale businesses, full compliance with all obligations was not feasible.
Thirdly, businesses or workplaces with fewer than 50 employees lacked the manpower necessary to comply with the requirements of Serious Accident Punishment Act. Small-scale SMEs faced difficulties in recruiting additional staff solely dedicated to safety tasks, especially considering the challenges in staffing basic operational roles. Insufficient dedicated safety personnel sometimes resulted in non-safety department staff having to take on safety-related tasks.
Fourthly, responsible managing officer or workplaces with fewer than 50 employees argued that imposing strict punishment solely on management executives in the event of a major fatal accident without examining the causality of the accident was unfair. They highlighted that in workplaces where fewer than 50 workers are present, both responsible managing officer and workers often operate in the same location. They believed that assigning complete responsibility and punishment to management executives without considering any contribution to the accident from the workers was unjust.
With the expanded application of Serious Accident Punishment Act, intending to present improvement measures addressing the issues derived from the perceptions and compliance process of small and medium-sized enterprise (SME) management executives, the following points have been proposed:
Firstly, there''s a necessity to establish an educational program specifically designed for responsible managing officer under Serious Accident Punishment Act, aimed at fostering safety awareness and philosophy among those responsible for businesses with fewer than 50 employees. This educational course should entail comprehensive understanding of the law''s purpose, obligations, and detailed requirements. Developing a program focusing on establishing safety leadership is crucial to enable direct execution and leadership in safety-related tasks, including the formation of safety health organizations, formulation of safety health management policies, allocation of safety health budgets, and evaluation of safety health managers.
Secondly, there is a need to reframe the obligation to ensure safety health without an indiscriminate approach, prioritizing tasks relevant to preventing major fatalities and safeguarding the lives of employees. Given the considerable overlap between the requirements of Serious Accident Punishment Act and the Industrial Safety and Health Act, reconfiguration based on ''importance'' and ''priority'' should be considered. Prioritizing feasible compliance with obligations based on their significance within SMEs is essential.
Thirdly, the government should expand the supply of safety health personnel and provide financial support, such as subsidizing salaries during recruitment, to aid SMEs. Mechanisms should be established to allow experienced workers who meet certain criteria to take on safety management roles at industrial sites. Furthermore, financial support should be provided to SMEs with fewer than 50 employees when hiring dedicated safety health personnel.
Fourthly, reconsideration of the lower limit of criminal punishment under Serious Accident Punishment Act is imperative. Fatal accidents in industrial settings often carry a higher risk of censure compared to other criminal offenses, yet the logical grounds for imposing severe penalties are insufficient. Modern corporations operate through various divisions and decentralized authority, making it unreasonable to hold a single individual entirely accountable.
Additionally, it is a common practice that workplace accidents involving fatalities often have partial responsibility on the workers'' side. while accountability for fatal accidents must be stringent, excessive penalties should not compromise the balance, fairness, and legitimacy of the law.
Labor and civic organizations have raised the need for the establishment of laws aimed at holding accountable those responsible for major accidents such as the Sewol ferry disaster, the humidifier disinfectant-related damages, fatalities at Hyundai Steel, the death of Kim Yong-kyun at the Taean Thermal Power Plant, and the tragic fire at a parcel delivery center in Icheon, Gyeonggi Province. Observing the threats posed to the lives and health of workers and citizens in these incidents, they highlight the necessity for legislation to hold the responsible parties accountable. Recently, our society recognizes major disasters not merely as accidents caused by individual errors but as ''organizational crimes'' within corporations. These are characterized by the absence of safety compliance by corporate management, deficiencies in corporate operational systems, neglect of safety in the working environment, lack of risk management systems within corporations, and a profit-centric corporate culture.
Modern corporations are highly segmented into various roles and hierarchies, and responsibilities for tasks are decentralized and delegated. Consequently, it becomes challenging to directly attribute responsibility for fatal accidents and impose legal penalties solely on corporate executives. Therefore, in the case of most major fatal accidents occurring in industrial sites, there has been a tendency to hold accountable frontline workers or middle managers rather than penalizing the executives. Consequently, despite the occurrence of major fatal accidents in industrial sites, there has been a lack of proper accountability for individuals in charge within the company, especially the executives of the principal company. The prevailing perception that the level of punishment for corporate management responsible for causing major accidents is inadequate has strongly influenced the need for the enactment of legislation regarding penalties for Serious Accident Punishment (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Serious Accident Punishment Act’).
The National Assembly passed the Act on the Penalty for Serious Accident Punishment Act on January 8, 2021, during the 383rd National Assembly plenary session, and it came into effect on January 27, 2022. The Act expands its coverage to businesses or workplaces with fewer than 50 employees starting from January 27, 2024, after the expiration of a three-year grace period since its enactment.
Given that 98% of businesses in South Korea are small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), with 81% of them having fewer than 50 employees, these SMEs will immediately fall under the jurisdiction of the Act once the grace period ends. However, there are doubts about whether these small-scale SMEs can fully comply with the safety and health obligations stipulated in the Act to take preventive measures against fatal accidents.
Furthermore, while South Korea''s semiconductor industry operates at a global level, beneath this industry lie numerous small-scale SMEs. Many second and third-tier subcontractors in the semiconductor industry consist of small companies with fewer than 50 employees, raising uncertainties about their ability to fulfill the safety and health obligations mandated by the Act.
This study employs qualitative research methods to investigate the perceptions of management executives in small-scale SMEs employing fewer than 50 workers in the semiconductor equipment industry regarding Serious Accident Punishment Act and the challenges they face in fulfilling its obligations.
Through in-depth interviews with management executives of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), the following issues were identified and analyzed:
Firstly, managers of businesses or workplaces with fewer than 50 employees demonstrated a lack of understanding of Serious Accident Punishment Act and lacked determination for legal compliance. Although these SME managers were aware of the current implementation of the Act, they were unaware that its expansion to SMEs with fewer than 50 employees would take effect from January 27, 2024. Moreover, they had little knowledge of the key obligations regarding ensuring safety and health.
Secondly, managers of businesses or workplaces with fewer than 50 employees expressed that expecting all obligations related to safety and health to be fulfilled by small-scale SMEs without any prioritization was unrealistic. While the Act specifies the obligation of ensuring safety and health for management executives in Article 4 and Article 5 of the enforcement decree, these SMEs stated that due to the practical conditions of small-scale businesses, full compliance with all obligations was not feasible.
Thirdly, businesses or workplaces with fewer than 50 employees lacked the manpower necessary to comply with the requirements of Serious Accident Punishment Act. Small-scale SMEs faced difficulties in recruiting additional staff solely dedicated to safety tasks, especially considering the challenges in staffing basic operational roles. Insufficient dedicated safety personnel sometimes resulted in non-safety department staff having to take on safety-related tasks.
Fourthly, responsible managing officer or workplaces with fewer than 50 employees argued that imposing strict punishment solely on management executives in the event of a major fatal accident without examining the causality of the accident was unfair. They highlighted that in workplaces where fewer than 50 workers are present, both responsible managing officer and workers often operate in the same location. They believed that assigning complete responsibility and punishment to management executives without considering any contribution to the accident from the workers was unjust.
With the expanded application of Serious Accident Punishment Act, intending to present improvement measures addressing the issues derived from the perceptions and compliance process of small and medium-sized enterprise (SME) management executives, the following points have been proposed:
Firstly, there''s a necessity to establish an educational program specifically designed for responsible managing officer under Serious Accident Punishment Act, aimed at fostering safety awareness and philosophy among those responsible for businesses with fewer than 50 employees. This educational course should entail comprehensive understanding of the law''s purpose, obligations, and detailed requirements. Developing a program focusing on establishing safety leadership is crucial to enable direct execution and leadership in safety-related tasks, including the formation of safety health organizations, formulation of safety health management policies, allocation of safety health budgets, and evaluation of safety health managers.
Secondly, there is a need to reframe the obligation to ensure safety health without an indiscriminate approach, prioritizing tasks relevant to preventing major fatalities and safeguarding the lives of employees. Given the considerable overlap between the requirements of Serious Accident Punishment Act and the Industrial Safety and Health Act, reconfiguration based on ''importance'' and ''priority'' should be considered. Prioritizing feasible compliance with obligations based on their significance within SMEs is essential.
Thirdly, the government should expand the supply of safety health personnel and provide financial support, such as subsidizing salaries during recruitment, to aid SMEs. Mechanisms should be established to allow experienced workers who meet certain criteria to take on safety management roles at industrial sites. Furthermore, financial support should be provided to SMEs with fewer than 50 employees when hiring dedicated safety health personnel.
Fourthly, reconsideration of the lower limit of criminal punishment under Serious Accident Punishment Act is imperative. Fatal accidents in industrial settings often carry a higher risk of censure compared to other criminal offenses, yet the logical grounds for imposing severe penalties are insufficient. Modern corporations operate through various divisions and decentralized authority, making it unreasonable to hold a single individual entirely accountable.
Additionally, it is a common practice that workplace accidents involving fatalities often have partial responsibility on the workers'' side. while accountability for fatal accidents must be stringent, excessive penalties should not compromise the balance, fairness, and legitimacy of the law.
목차
- 요 약 ⅰ표 목차 ⅶ그림 목차 ⅷⅠ. 서 론 11. 연구의 배경 및 필요성 12. 연구의 대상 및 방법 4Ⅱ. 이론적 고찰 71. 반도체 장비산업의 개관 및 특징 71) 반도체의 개념과 유형 72) 국내 반도체장비 시장의 구조 103) 반도체장비 산업의 영세성 132. 영국의 법인과실치사법 151) 법인과실치사법의 입법 배경 및 특징 152) 법인과실치사법과 중대재해처벌법의 비교 163. 중대재해처벌법의 의의 및 위상 171) 중대재해처벌법의 입법 배경 및 목적 172) 중대재해처벌법의 특징 및 법적 성격 193) 중대재해처벌법의 적용 유예 204. 중대재해처벌법의 의무 주체 211) 경영책임자등의 개념과 위상 212) 경영책임자의 안전·보건 확보의무 23(1) 안전보건관리체계의 구축 및 이행에 관한 조치 24(2) 재발방지 대책의 수립 및 이행에 관한 조치 28(3) 개선, 시정 등을 명한 사항에 관한 조치 29(4) 안전·보건 법령에 따른 의무이행에 필요한 관리상 조치 305. 중대재해처벌법의 제재 규정 311) 중대재해처벌법의 경영책임자 처벌 312) 중대산업재해의 양벌규정 333) 안전보건교육의 수강 344) 손해배상의 책임 35Ⅲ. 중대재해처벌법의 문제점 361. 중대재해처벌법의 몰이해와 정보 취득의 취약성 372. 위계를 고려하지 않은 안전보건 확보의무의 이행 403. 안전보건 전문인력 공급 부족 및 인건비 부담 424. 경영책임자 형사처벌과 인과관계의 모호성 44Ⅳ. 중대재해처벌법의 개선방안 471. 법률의 실효적 안착을 위한 안전보건 정책 강화 472. 우선순위를 고려한 안전보건 확보의무 이행 493. 안전보건 전문인력 공급확대와 정부의 재정지원 강화 514. 중대재해처벌법의 균형성과 정당성 회복 52Ⅴ. 결 론 55참고문헌 59부 록 63영문초록 (Abstract) 68감사의 글 74
최근 본 자료
