RISS 학술연구정보서비스

검색

인기 검색어

    다국어 입력

    http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.

    변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.

    예시)
    • 中文 을 입력하시려면 zhongwen을 입력하시고 space를누르시면됩니다.
    • 北京 을 입력하시려면 beijing을 입력하시고 space를 누르시면 됩니다.
    닫기
    KCI등재

    산업재해와 형사책임 -산업안전보건법 제66조의2를 중심으로- = Industrial Accidents and Criminal Responsibility -Focused on the Article 66-2 of OSHA-

    한글로보기

    https://www.riss.kr/link?id=A99619820

    • 0

      상세조회
    • 0

      다운로드
    서지정보 열기
    • 내보내기
    • 내책장담기
    • 공유하기
      • URL 복사
    • 오류접수
    인용문이 복사되었습니다.

    부가정보

    다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract) kakao i 다국어 번역

    Industrial accidents are unforeseen incidents that are not scheduled or planned and cause injury to employees. Occupation Safety and Health Act (OSHA) regulates that business owner have a duty and criminal responsibility to prevent industrial accidents. If the business owner breach the duty, the owner will be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than five years or a fine not exceeding fifty million one according to Art. 67. And if the employee is dead, the owner will be sentenced to imprisonment for not more seven years or a fine not exceeding one hundred million won according to Art. 66-2. So OSHA can be defined as criminal law of business owner. But the Supreme Court show a passive attitude towards application of Art. 66-2. So the elements of Art. 66-2 are not clear. And the legal characteristics of Art. 66-2 may be an issue. Because Art. 23 or 24 are done by omission that is possible not only negligence but intention. The Supreme Court may understand that it is a special form of professional negligence resulting in death. But Art. 67 is not regulate a penalty clause about negligence criminal, it`s legal characteristics is an aggravated crime. Therefore if the owner breach the duty and the employee is dead, the owner will be punished in accordance with Art. 66-2. But in that case, the owner should not be punished for simple violation of duty. In other words it should be revised an administrative penalty as the Special Act on the Safety Management of Facility. It may be summarized as follows. ① a simple violation of duty - administrative penalty, ② a repeatable violation of duty - corrective measures and administrative punishment, ③ an intentional violation of duty - administrative punishment. In that case, I think that the principle of legality harmonizes with benefit and protection of OSHA.
    번역하기

    Industrial accidents are unforeseen incidents that are not scheduled or planned and cause injury to employees. Occupation Safety and Health Act (OSHA) regulates that business owner have a duty and criminal responsibility to prevent industrial accident...

    Industrial accidents are unforeseen incidents that are not scheduled or planned and cause injury to employees. Occupation Safety and Health Act (OSHA) regulates that business owner have a duty and criminal responsibility to prevent industrial accidents. If the business owner breach the duty, the owner will be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than five years or a fine not exceeding fifty million one according to Art. 67. And if the employee is dead, the owner will be sentenced to imprisonment for not more seven years or a fine not exceeding one hundred million won according to Art. 66-2. So OSHA can be defined as criminal law of business owner. But the Supreme Court show a passive attitude towards application of Art. 66-2. So the elements of Art. 66-2 are not clear. And the legal characteristics of Art. 66-2 may be an issue. Because Art. 23 or 24 are done by omission that is possible not only negligence but intention. The Supreme Court may understand that it is a special form of professional negligence resulting in death. But Art. 67 is not regulate a penalty clause about negligence criminal, it`s legal characteristics is an aggravated crime. Therefore if the owner breach the duty and the employee is dead, the owner will be punished in accordance with Art. 66-2. But in that case, the owner should not be punished for simple violation of duty. In other words it should be revised an administrative penalty as the Special Act on the Safety Management of Facility. It may be summarized as follows. ① a simple violation of duty - administrative penalty, ② a repeatable violation of duty - corrective measures and administrative punishment, ③ an intentional violation of duty - administrative punishment. In that case, I think that the principle of legality harmonizes with benefit and protection of OSHA.

    더보기

    동일학술지(권/호) 다른 논문

    동일학술지 더보기

    더보기

    분석정보

    View

    상세정보조회

    0

    Usage

    원문다운로드

    0

    대출신청

    0

    복사신청

    0

    EDDS신청

    0

    동일 주제 내 활용도 TOP

    더보기

    주제

    연도별 연구동향

    연도별 활용동향

    연관논문

    연구자 네트워크맵

    공동연구자 (7)

    유사연구자 (20) 활용도상위20명

    이 자료와 함께 이용한 RISS 자료

    나만을 위한 추천자료

    해외이동버튼