본문 바로가기
HOME> 보고서 > 보고서 검색상세

보고서 상세정보

다중인명피해 안전사고에 대한 형사정책적 대응방안 연구
Criminal Policy on Large-Scale Accidents with Multiple Casualties and Injuries

  • 과제명

    다중인명피해 안전사고에 대한 형사정책적 대응방안 연구

  • 주관연구기관

    한국형사정책연구원
    Korean Institute of Criminology

  • 연구책임자

    이천현

  • 참여연구자

    임정호   김형길  

  • 보고서유형

    최종보고서

  • 발행국가

    대한민국

  • 언어

    한국어

  • 발행년월

    2015-12

  • 과제시작년도

    2015

  • 주관부처

    국무조정실

  • 사업 관리 기관

    한국형사정책연구원
    Korean Institute of Criminology

  • 등록번호

    TRKO201600001177

  • 과제고유번호

    1105009696

  • DB 구축일자

    2016-05-21

  • 초록 


    Criminal policy approaches towards accidents with multiple casualties and injuries are basically taken in two different steps – b...

    Criminal policy approaches towards accidents with multiple casualties and injuries are basically taken in two different steps – before and after the occurrence of an accident. First, at the level of prevention, certain obligations to take safety measures are imposed to stop any accident from ever happening, and non-performance of such obligations will be subject to criminal punishment. Second, after an accident occurs, those who are responsible for it are punished. Between these two-level approaches, the focus is, as in other areas, on the former.
    In order for such approaches to be successfully taken, obligations and sanctions that are imposed should be appropriate (prevention), punishment should be reasonable and effective (prohibition of excessive legislation, general prevention), and the subject and method of punishment should be proper (conversion to fines for negligence, corporate punishment, etc.). These three points are the basic directions of the criminal policies for accidents with multiple victims, which are the subject of this paper. The emphasis, of course, should be on prevention, not on punishment.
    Based on such directions, criminal policy approaches towards accidents with multiple casualties and injuries are summarized as follows.
    1. Revision of Laws and Regulations on the Response to Accidents
    (1) For an enhanced prevention-focused approach, important safety obligations should be selected and their performance should be guaranteed by strict and reasonable punishment.
    ① It is appropriate to strengthen sanctions in overall with regard to violations of obligation to conduct an safety check and through safety diagnosis, which are essential for the prevention of large-scale accidents. This is because when a safety check is not carried out, this may endanger the public or cause casualties. In addition, sanctions under similar Acts should be compared and revised to create more organized and consistent ones.
    ② Drinking alcohol and taking drugs should be regulated in a unified manner. Under the laws and regulations related to marine, railroad, and air traffic, driving or operation under the influence of alcohol or drugs is prohibited as on the road. However, there exist differences among the statutory punishments under the Maritime Safety Act, Aviation Act, and Railroad Safety Act, and there is no provision regarding taking drugs. It is necessary to enact supplementary legislation to resolve this.
    ③ It is also needed to revise sanctions regarding the safety manager system. Currently, most Acts have provisions on the safety manager system in areas with high risks of accidents. However, sanctions for not appointing a safety manager differ from each other under those Acts, and there is no penal provision regarding employing a substitute for a safety manager.
    ④ There should be no objection to the need to enhance education and training to prevent, and respond to, accidents. To this end, all laws and regulations related to safety should contain provisions on the education and training, and sentences for violations of such obligation need to be toughened up. Especially, violation of the obligation regarding education for carrying dangerous goods is highly likely to cause multiple victims. The current penalties, therefore, should be revised to be heavier than those for violation of obligation regarding other types of education.
    (2) When an accident occurs, people in certain positions (e.g. captain of a vessel) are under obligation to take measures necessary to save human lives. This is because violations of this kind of obligation will directly harm people’s lives or properties. Therefore, sanctions for such violations require more through revision. Most Acts related to safety provide penalties for, first, violations of obligation to take necessary measures after an accident occurs, and second, non-performance of such obligation which led to casualties. Of course, the latter is subject to heavier punishment. However, comparison of punishments for each level under those Acts reveals the lack of organization and consistency in those provisions. In particular, many Acts that contain penal provisions for violations of obligation to take rescue measures do not provide for sanctions against any act that has actually led to casualties due to such non-performance after an accident occurred. This also requires further and supplementary legislation.
    (3) In order to specify safety obligations and guarantee their fulfillment, it is essential to select acts of non-performance of obligation that cause accidents and, thus, lead to casualties and to provide sanctions against such non-performance. Currently, only some Acts contain penal provisions for non-performance of obligation which causes accidents and acts that thereby consequently lead to casualties.
    (4) Negligence in the conduct of one’s professional duties or gross negligence can happen at any scene of an accident. Therefore, it is appropriate that provisions regarding causing risks to the public due to negligence be contained in all Acts related to safety.
    (5) There exists some degree of doubt about the efficiency of lenient provisions on fines, such as those that read “fines not exceeding three million won.” Punishment (fines) is, as different from fines for negligence, imposed through strict and complicated criminal procedures, which leads to a waste of costs. Besides, even though such procedures are instituted, the amount of the fines is too small to have any deterrent power. Hence, it should be imposed in the form of a fine for negligence. In many cases, provisions that provide for imprisonment and fines, between which one can be selected, are not consistent in terms of the proportionality between imprisonment and fines. This is another area in need of an overall revision.
    (6) In many Acts, types of violations that are totally different in nature are described under a single penal provision. Such a provision usually provides for very lenient sanctions. It also does not clearly define acts which are prohibited and subject to punishment. Therefore, acts with different nature need to be covered under different provisions.
    (7) Article 121 (Legal Fiction as Public Officials in Application of Penal Provisions) of the Nuclear Safety Act that provides “any person who falls under any of the following subparagraphs shall be deemed a public official in applying the penal provisions of the Criminal Act and other Acts” expands the state punishment power and thus should be repealed. In addition, the provision that requires an accusation of the Minister of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs to institute the public action should also be deleted as it has no reasonable grounds.
    2. Sanctions against a person related to accidents with multiple casualties
    and injuries need to be reasonable.
    (1) Strengthened punishment for accidents with multiple victims based on the principle of severe punishment cannot be regarded as reasonable sanctions. This is because imposing severe punishment on a manager, supervisor, or public official, or a person who is directly responsible for the accident does not prevent the same types of major accidents. Safety accidents that cause multiple victims are basically “accidents,” which are caused by negligence. Severe punishment for negligence, different from the case of intentional crimes, does not preclude the possibility of any violation of obligation to pay attention.
    (2) “The Act on Special Cases Concerning Aggravated Punishment on Concurrent Crimes Causing Multiple Casualties and Injuries” proposed by the Ministry of Justice as a sanction against concurrent crimes harbors many problems as discussed above.
    The principle of concurrent sentences in other countries has significant limitations, and aggravated punishment for cumulative offences is also a problem which should not be left unchecked. Furthermore, the principle does not properly define the concept of multitude. And there is no clear distinction between “Handlungsunwert” and “Erfolgsunwert”. Problems may also be raised regarding fairness between crimes with multiple casualties and injuries and other crimes. This proposed Act also does not contain any provision on short-term aggravation, which implies the possibility of imposing the minimum punishment. Lastly, the Criminal Act and major criminal Special Acts do not provide for imprisonment for a limited term as a statutory punishment for murder or accidental homicide. In some cases, it is not clear whether such imprisonment may be applied in the first place. Therefore, it is all the more urgent to reduce the possibility of mitigating the sentences. This requires revising the statutory punishments for negligence in one’s professional duties resulting in death or injury under the Criminal Act and other Special Acts. In addition, with regard to the concurrent crimes under the general provisions of the Criminal Act, the maximum sentences should be aggravated by one-half. Whether to aggravate the minimum sentences at the same time needs a comprehensive review.
    (3) In the case of professional negligence resulting in death or injury under the Criminal Act, separate statutory punishments should be provided for the case of death and injury. It will also be necessary to set forth both the maximum and minimum sentences or, at least, to aggravate the maximum sentences. Raising fines of the statutory punishments for (professional) negligence resulting in death or injury under the Criminal Act as well as Special Acts will be inevitable as well.
    (4) With regard to providing reasonable sanctions against managers or supervisors, the introduction of the principle of negligence in supervision to expand the scope of criminal punishment is not necessarily needed. In compliance with the principle of freedom of contract, it is not possible to regulate risks coming from abroad. However, under Article 10-2 of the revised Act on Regulation and Punishment of Criminal Proceeds Concealment (so called, “Yoo Byung-eun law”), the requirements of “criminal responsibilities” and “an accident causing a loss of multiple human lives” need to be revised once again.
    (5) In relation to providing sanctions against public officials concerned, it does not seem really necessary to introduce penal provisions for casing injury while performing official duties under the German criminal law. It is also not considered as a reasonable sanction to limit retirement benefits of the public officials concerned. Disciplinary actions (in relation to Article 2, paragraph
    1) in the Attached Table 1 (revised on August 19, 2015) of the Enforcement Rule of the Disciplinary Orders of Public Officials for “non-performance of accusation of major corrupt practices related to official duties” as part of non-compliance of duties of good faith are categorized as follows: degradation and suspension for “high degree of omission and gross negligence, or low degree of omission and intentional”; suspension (severe disciplinary action) and salary reduction (minor disciplinary action) for “high degree of omission and slight negligence, or low degree of omission and gross negligence”; and only salary reduction and reprimand for “low degree of omission and slight negligence.” The disciplinary actions described above are deemed to be too lenient for acts that may directly cause accidents. Therefore, they need to be toughened up.
    3. In general, in the fields of nuclear energy, toxic chemicals, and air traffic where complicated and highly decentralized technical systems are used, safety accidents are not caused by individuals such as employees, but they are rather attributable to organizational and structural problems including those of the rules, practices, systems, and culture of the organization. Given such fact, it is essential to strengthen corporate responsibilities to prevent large-scale accidents, e.g. the sinking of Sewol Ferry. To this end, proactive legislation is not an option but a must, which may include enacting the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act.


    1. 연구수행
    우리사회는 1980년대 이후 1ㆍ2차 산업중심의 농ㆍ어업사회에서 고도산업사회로 진입하게 되었다. 고도성장 또는 압축성장으로 표현되는 우리사회의 급속한 고도산업 사회로의 진입은 역으로 재난으로부터의 엄청난 우려와 ...

    1. 연구수행
    우리사회는 1980년대 이후 1ㆍ2차 산업중심의 농ㆍ어업사회에서 고도산업사회로 진입하게 되었다. 고도성장 또는 압축성장으로 표현되는 우리사회의 급속한 고도산업 사회로의 진입은 역으로 재난으로부터의 엄청난 우려와 피해를 야기하였다. 고밀도의 도시화, 철도ㆍ항공ㆍ선박 등 교통수단의 대형화와 이용률 증가, 도시가스 보급화, 화학산업의 발전 등 우리사회의 재난환경이 급변하면서 한 건의 안전사고의 발생은 막대한 인명피해와 재산상 손해를 유발하는 대형참사로 이어지게 된 것이다. 1994년 성수대교 붕괴사고, 1995년 삼풍백화점 붕괴사건, 2003년 대구지하철 화재사고, 2014년 세월호 침몰사고 등은 우리의 역사에 커다란 각인을 하고 있는 사고들이다.
    수 많은 대형사고를 겪으면서 "시설물의 안전관리에 관한 특별법", "재난관리법"(현재, "재난 및 안전관리기본법") 등이 제정ㆍ시행되고 60여 개의 안전 관련법령의 재정비를 통해 재난 예방조치가 강화되었지만, 다중이용시설의 대규모화와 이용증가, 건축물ㆍ교통수단ㆍ산업시설 등의 노후화, 생활공간의 밀집화에 따른 안전사고의 위험성은 여전히 상존하고 있고, 관광 및 유흥산업의 발달에 따른 유동인구의 증가 등의 이유로 유락시설이나 철도ㆍ항공기ㆍ여객선 등의 교통사고는 더욱 늘어날 것으로 예상 되고 있다.
    이러한 위험 속에서 - 2014년의 세월호 침몰참사에서 볼 수 있었던 바와 같이
    – 다중인명피해 안전사고 방지를 위한 안전관리 규제체계나 사후적 조치가 여전히 매우 부실하다는 부정적 평가를 받고 있다. 특히 세월호 참사에 원인을 제공한 관련 당사자들에 대한 형사처벌과 관련하여, 경합범 가중규정의 한계, 안전사고 관련 과실 범죄에 대한 낮은 법정형, 처벌 규정의 미비 등 형사정책 관련 제도와 법률의 흠결이 큰 문제로 드러나고 있다.
    이에 이 연구에서는 다중인명피해 안전사고가 주로 발생되는 8개의 주요 영역을 중심으로 다중인명피해 안전사고의 발생 및 피해실태를 살펴보고 이에 대한 법적 규제체계 및 현황을 검토ㆍ분석하였다. 또한 미국, 독일, 일본 등 주요국가의 다중인명 피해 안전사고에 대한 형사정책적 대응현황을 연구하였고, 8개 영역의 다중인명피해 안전사고에 대한 대표사례 연구를 통하여 피해실태, 사고원인, 각 관련자들에 대한 처벌, 정부 등의 사후 조치 등의 내용을 분석ㆍ파악하였다. 이를 토대로 – 다음과 같은
    - 다중인명피해 안전사고를 효과적으로 예방하고 통제할 수 있는 형사정책적 대응방안을 강구하였다.


  • 목차(Contents) 

    1. 표지 ... 1
    2. 경제ㆍ인문사회연구회 협동연구 총서 ... 3
    3. 발간사 ... 5
    4. 목차 ... 7
    5. 표목차 ... 19
    6. 그림목차 ... 24
    7. 국문요약 ... 25
    8. 제1장 서 론 ... 31
    9. 제1절 연구목적 ... 33
    10. 제2절 연구범...
    1. 표지 ... 1
    2. 경제ㆍ인문사회연구회 협동연구 총서 ... 3
    3. 발간사 ... 5
    4. 목차 ... 7
    5. 표목차 ... 19
    6. 그림목차 ... 24
    7. 국문요약 ... 25
    8. 제1장 서 론 ... 31
    9. 제1절 연구목적 ... 33
    10. 제2절 연구범위 및 방법 ... 35
    11. 제2장 다중인명피해 안전사고의 발생과 규제 현황 ... 37
    12. 제1절 다중인명피해 안전사고 ... 39
    13. Ⅰ. 안전사고와 재난 ... 39
    14. Ⅱ. 다중인명피해 안전사고 ... 40
    15. 제2절 (다중)인명피해 안전사고의 발생 및 피해현황 ... 45
    16. Ⅰ. 총괄: 인적재난 발생현황 ... 45
    17. Ⅱ. 해양사고 ... 49
    18. Ⅲ. 항공사고 ... 54
    19. Ⅳ. 철도사고 ... 58
    20. Ⅴ. 화재사고 ... 65
    21. Ⅵ. 붕괴사고 ... 71
    22. Ⅶ. 가스사고 ... 74
    23. Ⅷ. 폭발사고 ... 78
    24. Ⅸ. 산업재해 ... 81
    25. Ⅹ. 요약 ... 88
    26. XI. 다중인명 피해를 유발한 안전사고의 주요 사례 및 피해현황 ... 89
    27. 제3절 각종 안전사고 대응관련 행정법령 규제현황 ... 90
    28. Ⅰ. 재난 및 안전관리 법령 현황 ... 90
    29. Ⅱ. 해상사고 ... 103
    30. Ⅲ. 항공사고 ... 122
    31. Ⅳ. 철도사고 ... 127
    32. Ⅴ. 화재사고 ... 134
    33. Ⅵ. 붕괴사고 ... 141
    34. Ⅶ. 가스・화생방사고 ... 151
    35. Ⅷ. 폭발사고 ... 166
    36. Ⅸ. 산재사고(산업재해) ... 168
    37. Ⅹ. 소결 ... 173
    38. 제4절 형사법상의 대응현황 ... 174
    39. Ⅰ. 형사법상의 처벌법규 ... 174
    40. Ⅱ. 다중인명피해 안전사고에 있어서 각 관련자의 형사책임 ... 180
    41. 제3장 주요 국가에서의 다중인명피해 안전사고에 대한 형사정책적 대응 ... 197
    42. 제1절 독일 (충남대학교) ... 199
    43. Ⅰ. 서론 ... 199
    44. Ⅱ. 독일에서의 다중인명피해 안전사고 관련 대응체계 ... 200
    45. Ⅲ. 독일에서의 다중인명피해 안전사고 관련 제재 ... 208
    46. Ⅳ. 안전사고 관련자 형사책임 ... 249
    47. Ⅴ. 다중인명피해 안전사고에 대한 독일의 최근 대응동향 ... 262
    48. Ⅵ. 독일에서의 다중인명피해 안전사고 관련 주요 사례연구 ... 269
    49. Ⅶ. 결론 ... 280
    50. 제2절 미국 (대전대학교) ... 282
    51. Ⅰ. 미국의 대형안전사고 관련 대응체계 검토 ... 282
    52. Ⅱ. 미국의 안전사고 관련 법제 – 형사처벌 조문을 중심으로 ... 295
    53. Ⅲ. 안전사고 관련자의 형사책임 ... 313
    54. Ⅳ. 다중인명피해 안전사고 관련 주요 사례 연구 ... 333
    55. Ⅴ. 결론 ... 356
    56. 제3절 일본 ... 358
    57. Ⅰ. 서론 ... 358
    58. Ⅱ. 다중인명피해 안전사고에 대한 대응 시스템 및 논의 등의 전반적 상황 ... 363
    59. Ⅲ. 개별 영역에서의 사고대응 시스템 및 주요 사례 ... 370
    60. Ⅳ. 현황에 대한 평가에 대하여 : 일본의 다중인명피해 안전사고에 대한 형사정책적 대응의 위치와 과제 ... 485
    61. Ⅴ. 전망 및 결론 ... 490
    62. 제4장 다중인명피해 안전사고 발생 및 처리실태에 관한 사례조사 ... 497
    63. 제1절 서론 ... 499
    64. Ⅰ. 연구 배경 및 목적 ... 499
    65. Ⅱ. 주요 연구 내용 ... 501
    66. Ⅲ. 연구방법 ... 502
    67. Ⅳ. 사례선정 및 조사방법 ... 503
    68. 제2절 주요 사례 심층 분석 ... 513
    69. Ⅰ. 해상사고 ... 513
    70. Ⅱ. 항공기사고 ... 529
    71. Ⅲ. 철도사고 ... 539
    72. Ⅳ. 화재사고 ... 566
    73. Ⅴ. 붕괴사고 ... 588
    74. Ⅵ. 가스ㆍ화생방사고 ... 618
    75. Ⅶ. 폭발사고 ... 642
    76. Ⅷ. 산업재해 ... 679
    77. 제3절 시사점과 형사정책적 개선방향 ... 707
    78. Ⅰ. 사례분석 시사점 ... 707
    79. Ⅱ. 형사정책적 개선방향 ... 724
    80. Ⅲ. 소결 ... 744
    81. 제5장 다중인명피해 안전사고에 대한 형사정책적 대응방안 ... 749
    82. 제1절 다중인명피해 안전사고에 대한 형사정책적 대응의 기본방향 ... 751
    83. Ⅰ. 안전사고 대응을 위한 형사정책적 개입 방향 ... 751
    84. Ⅱ. 관련자에 대한 합리적 제재 방안 모색: 2014년 세월호 사건 판결과 관련하여 ... 753
    85. Ⅲ. 세월호 사건 개요와 판결 ... 755
    86. 제2절 각종 안전사고 대응관련 법령의 정비방안 ... 774
    87. Ⅰ. 사전예방 기능의 강화 ... 774
    88. Ⅱ. 사고 발생 후 사고조치의무 등 위반과 처벌 ... 785
    89. Ⅲ. 의무불이행에 의한 사고 유발 및 사상 결과 발생과 처벌 ... 790
    90. Ⅳ. 업무상과실에 의한 사고 유발 및 사상 결과 발생과 처벌 ... 793
    91. Ⅴ. 비범죄화와 법정형 정비 ... 796
    92. Ⅵ. 기타 정비방안 ... 800
    93. 제3절 다중인명피해 안전사고 관련자에 대한 합리적 제재 방안 ... 804
    94. Ⅰ. 중형주의와 형사정책 ... 804
    95. Ⅱ. 경합범에 대한 합리적 제재 ... 812
    96. Ⅲ. 업무상과실치사상죄의 정비 ... 844
    97. Ⅳ. 경영주 또는 감독자에 대한 제재 ... 869
    98. Ⅴ. 관계 공무원에 대한 제재 ... 882
    99. 제4절 조직처벌 강화 ... 893
    100. Ⅰ. 기업처벌의 한계와 필요성 ... 893
    101. Ⅱ. 기업책임의 강화와 기업살인법 ... 895
    102. Ⅲ. 소결 ... 899
    103. 제6장결 론 (한국형사정책연구원) ... 901
    104. 1. 각종 안전사고 대응관련 법령의 정비방안 ... 903
    105. 2. 다중인명피해 안전사고 관련자에 대한 제재는 합리적이어야 한다. ... 906
    106. 참고문헌 ... 909
    107. Abstract ... 927
    108. 부록 ... 935
    109. 끝페이지 ... 957
  • 참고문헌

    1. 전체(0)
    2. 논문(0)
    3. 특허(0)
    4. 보고서(0)

 활용도 분석

  • 상세보기

    amChart 영역
  • 원문보기

    amChart 영역