중대재해처벌법_김정후

[김정후]

<What’s the original intention of the Act?>
It is time to rethink the original intention of the Serious Disaster Act. The Serious Disaster Act, which took effect in January last year, requires criminal punishment of employers or management managers who neglect safety obligations in the event of a death accident at a workplace. And it is applied to workplaces with 5 to 49 employees in consideration of the preparation period. The main point is that claims that the Seious Disaster Act is unconstitutional were rejected by the Constitutional Court earlier this month, and 80% of workplaces with fewer than 50 employees said they could comply with the law.

However, as opposition from the business community intensified ahead of the expansion of the plan in January next year, the People’s Power announced a two-year grace period revision at the initiative of Rep. President Yoon also weighing on the suspension, for a “demand of people”. The problem is that the number of workers who die in small workplaces with fewer than 50 employees per year amounts to 1,300, accounting for 60 percent of the total industrial accident deaths. Most of the cases have infringed on the lives and safety of workers because employers do not even have basic safety facilities stipulated in the existing Occupational Safety and Health Act. The reality is that existing laws are not followed.

Despite this situation, the business parties are protesting the law, saying that if the law is expanded, companies will close their business and workers will lose their jobs due to the criminal punishment of employers. Such an exaggeration. What is the reality like? It is becoming a common practice that a businessman who was prosecuted as the No.1 prosecutor for inflicting chemical injuries on 16 workers is sentenced to probation and is subject to the minimum sentence of bare punishment for being a first-time offender. It is also far from the law’s intention to improve safety management and prevent disasters by holding them sternly accountable.

The government and the ruling party are also irresponsible to suspend the expansion, saying they lack preparation, and the Democratic Party, which was responsible for the grace period during the last government, is also out of the blue. A two-year moratorium is not a better situation. This is why the critical disaster law established by the bereaved families of industrial accidents and civil society should not be neutralized by party politics ahead of next year's general elections.

[UNGP]

영어에 능숙하다는 인상을 주는 글이라 좋았습니다. 단문과 장문을 적절히 섞어서 배치하면 훨씬 더 좋은 글이 될 것 같습니다. 중간중간 긴 문장들을 짧게 줄여주면 더 가독성이 올라갈 듯 합니다. 잘 읽었습니다.

[송정현]

중대재해처벌법을 지지하지만 이 것을 반대하는 재계의 입장도 중간 중간 적절히 잘 넣어주신 것 같습니다. 전체적으로 영작 실력이 뛰어나 잘 읽혔습니다만 저 또한 중간 중간 몇 문장은 약간 짧게 다등어 주면 좋을 것 같다는 생각입니다. 잘 읽었습니다.

[질홍칭구]

현안에 대해 잘 이해하고 쓴 글인 거 같습니다. 근거들이 주장들을 잘 바춰주는 거 같습니다.

[조혜윤]

자칫하면 이념싸움이 될 수 있는데 중재법 논지의 핵심을 잘 짚어주신 것 같아 그 점이 돋보였습니다! 저도 단문을 적절히 섞어서 배치하는데 동의합니다!