23 Dead in Factory Fire: CEO's Sentence Drastically Reduced on Appeal

In contrast to the initial 15-year prison sentence for the Arice factory fire, the factory CEO's sentence has been significantly reduced to 4 years in the appellate court. While acknowledging the gravity of the accident that resulted in 23 deaths, the court cited the full settlement with all victims' families as a primary reason for the reduced sentence. The appellate court noted that settlements had been reached with all bereaved families of the deceased victims and all injured parties, explaining that even if some families are requesting punishment, limiting the consideration of settlements in sentencing could make defendants less proactive or disinclined to pursue victim compensation.

This ruling raises questions about the effectiveness of the Act on Punishment of Business Serious Accidents and Disasters, commonly known as the Serious Accidents Punishment Act (SAPA). Settlements with victim families have consistently served as a factor in lowering sentences in SAPA violation cases. The fact that sentences were reduced even in a case involving over 20 deaths has amplified doubts about the SAPA's efficacy.

Companies prosecuted for SAPA violations have repeatedly employed strategies of reducing sentences through settlements with victim families and by hiring large law firms. A common pattern has emerged where large law firms are hired from the early stages of an investigation, and settlement negotiations with victim families are used to moderate the severity of punishment. Arice, too, hired a legal team from one of the largest law firms in the country immediately after the accident and maintained a large legal contingent even after indictment, securing grounds for a reduced sentence through settlements with victim families. This approach to case management tends to focus on legal defense and settlements rather than on substantive preventative measures such as improving safety equipment or reorganizing operations, and has been evaluated as similar to previous cases.

As this structure persists, criticism has emerged from legal circles and victim families that the SAPA is failing in its role of preventing industrial accidents by punishing responsible management. In a statement released immediately after the appellate court's decision, the victims' families highlighted that most of the deceased were breadwinners, leaving their families to grapple with financial hardship. They criticized the practice of reducing sentences based on settlements, arguing that it is akin to declaring 'there is no justice in the face of money' for families who were compelled to settle out of necessity for survival. Son Ik-chan, a lawyer for the Arice Disaster Response Committee's legal support group, also argued that victim settlements should be seen as a factor for increased punishment if settlements were not reached, rather than a reason for reduction, and pointed out that the current sentence is excessively light. He warned that repeated instances of such leniency could weaken the overall punishment for industrial accidents and ultimately undermine the effectiveness of the SAPA itself.