[New Square 2PM] The fire in the Incheon factory...joint identification of fire authorities and others

■ Host: Anchor Na Kyung-chul and anchor Lee Se-na
■ Starring: Lawyer Lim Joo-hye

* The text below may differ from the actual broadcast content, so please check the broadcast for more accurate information. Please specify [YTN New Square 2PM] when quoting.

[Anchor]
Let's look at the incidents and accidents that are receiving a lot of attention.

[Anchor]
Case 2, today we will be with lawyer Lim Joo-hye. Welcome.

[Lim Joo-hye]
Hello,

[Anchor]
A fire broke out at a factory complex in Incheon yesterday, a holiday, and it was very large. It took 11 hours to put out the fire?

[Lim Joo-hye]
That's right. A fire broke out in an area where factories were concentrated in Incheon, leading to a large fire. These factories were a little close together. And last weekend, the wind was blowing very hard, so it seems that the fire spread quickly. However, it is fortunate that the fire authorities responded quickly to the points that were fortunate to have prevented the spread to other areas and did not lead to human damage. It can be evaluated as this, but nonetheless, material damage is very considerable.

[Anchor]
Although there are no casualties, it is widely known to be vulnerable to fire. Sandwich panel building factories were concentrated, and it was difficult to enter the fire vehicle at the site.

[Lim Joo-hye]
That's right. As you said, there was also the influence of the wind, and because it was a sandwich panel-type structure, which is commonly mentioned, the fire spread in an instant. Therefore, after the initial report, the first stage of response was issued, and after that, the second stage of response was issued, and all personnel and equipment from the Incheon Fire Department were mobilized to suppress it. Black smoke spread in this bright red flame really quickly, and even though the fire helicopter was constantly putting out the fire, it was not easy to put out the fire. In particular, there are stories that it was very difficult to enter fire trucks, but since these factories are very dense, there was not enough space for fire trucks to park in the meantime, so it was very difficult to suppress them.

[Anchor]
It may take some time to determine the exact cause of the fire, but it was said that they had a joint inspection with about 10 people, including fire officials and National Forensic Service researchers. What did you focus on?

[Lim Joo-hye]
That's right. You can see the completely burned-out factories as if you can check them with a video or photo now. If so, the most important thing will be to find out the cause of the fire, so I think it is necessary to check the initial ignition point, that is, the point where the spark appears to have occurred at the beginning. Specifically, it seems that there will be an investigation into what caused this fire and the cause of the ignition. Typically, the cause of ignition is an aging wire, a malfunction of the machine, or an inflow of embers from the outside in some cases. Since there can be many things, the joint inspection team will conduct a comprehensive investigation into the exact cause of the fire, the ignition point, and the ignition.

[Anchor]
We just connected Yoon Tae-in to the site and looked at the situation, and we heard that buildings hundreds of meters away were burned down. If it's revealed where the ignition started and what caused it, I think the responsibility for it will change.

[Lim Joo-hye]
That's right. That's also a very important part in terms of compensation for damage. In the case of this fire, the damage to the victims is severe because it occurred in an area where small factories are concentrated. As you mentioned earlier, factories were attached to a rather small space. As a result, even if the fire response was fast, compensation for damage is very important in the end, considering the fact that the fire is eventually caught in a state that is really burned down. Of course, there is a very high probability that each company will be subscribed to compensation for the fire for the factory. If you have fire compensation insurance, you can first receive some damage compensation through the insurance company's insurance payment, but the upper limit of insurance coverage for each company may be different.

In the end, it seems that it will take a very long time to confirm the final damage compensation by going through the process of claiming compensation between insurance companies, and other insurance companies making another claim if it turns out that the fire was caused by the negligence of one company after I compensated the victim. First of all, the Seo-gu Office in Incheon also said that it will operate an integrated support headquarters to closely investigate the damage situation and actively support areas that need support, so we hope that the damage will be confirmed as soon as possible and the compensation process will be carried out quickly.

[Anchor]
The next topic we prepared is also an accident similar to the fire that occurred yesterday. Let's watch the related video first and talk about it.

[Anchor]
The Arisel factory fire that killed 23 people in June. The first trial of Park Soon-kwan, who was arrested and charged in this case, will be held shortly at 3 p.m. What charges are you facing?

[Lim Joo-hye]
The Arisel fire caused a lot of damage. It took 23 lives and a number of injuries. As a result of the survey, it was a total talent. This has been confirmed. To analyze this cause a little bit, first of all, I would like to point out that I only pursued economic profits. In the end, Arisel received unreasonable delivery and produced on time in the process, and the defect rate increased, but despite the fact that it was sufficiently confirmed, it could be suspected that it eventually helped cause this accident by continuing to turn the factory.

The second is the outsourcing of risk. I want to point out that we hired some unskilled dispatched workers to reduce labor costs in order to pursue economic benefits, despite these dangerous situations being revealed everywhere, and finally, safety insensitivity. Even though there was a similar fire right before the fire broke out in Aricel in June, even then, despite the problems of narrow evacuation routes, the loading of goods at emergency exits, and the vulnerability of unskilled workers to respond to fires, Park Soon-kwan is suspected of violating the Critical Accident Punishment Act, which ultimately holds the representative responsible for the failure to properly manage such safety in violation of the Critical Accident Punishment Act. The first anniversary will be held today, and related contents are expected to be focused on.

[Anchor]
Usually, when such an accident occurs, the crime and charges that come to mind a lot of professional manslaughter, but CEO Park Soon-kwan did not charge the prosecution with professional manslaughter. What's the reason?

[Lim Joo-hye]
Of course, in this case, there are several people who are now being tried under arrest and without detention, and first of all, CEO Park Soon-kwan was not charged with professional negligence, but his son, the general manager, was also charged with professional negligence. In order for the charge of professional negligence to be applied to the point where this difference occurs, there must be a specific professional negligence. In order for it to be legally confirmed that it is a professional negligence, a specific responsibility of giving a certain instruction must follow to apply the charges of professional negligence. Therefore, before the serious accident punishment law was enacted, specific work orders did not reach that far for the representative who leads a group, and the representative cannot know all the work conditions, so he has pointed out the problems of avoiding the application of the charge of professional negligence. Therefore, this time, at least in the case of CEO Park Soon-kwan, these points were taken into account because the Serious Disaster Punishment Act, which can be held accountable only for the overall management of work and violation of the obligation to lead the company safely, was applied, except for specific instructions.

[Anchor]
There can be more than a year in prison. CEO Park Soon-kwan is said to be the second case in which he was arrested and prosecuted for applying the Serious Accident Punishment Act to a corporate CEO.

[Lim Joo-hye]
That's right. This is the second case of being arrested and tried. In 2022, the Serious Disaster Punishment Act was implemented and applied in earnest, and there have been many cases of prosecution since then, and CEO Park Soon-kwan has been put on trial related to the Serious Disaster Punishment Act in custody for the second time since the case of the Seokpo Smelter in Youngpoong. What was inevitable was that the damage was so great that many deaths occurred. As I said earlier, this incident was a man-made disaster. The investigation confirmed the lack of safe management following only economic profits to the extent that it could be considered a predicted talent, but nevertheless, attempts to destroy evidence on this point have been confirmed to some extent, so they are eventually being tried in custody.

[Anchor]
It was said that the case was distributed to a single department where one judge judged, and then it was decided to proceed with the consensus hearing by three judges. What's the reason for this change?

[Lim Joo-hye]
Since it is a violation of the Serious Accident Punishment Act, which is stipulated by imprisonment for more than a year, it is originally carried out by the consensus department, but in some cases, it may be carried out alone, but in this case, the damage was so severe. And since the point that can be evaluated as complex is that the cause of the fire must be dealt with together in this trial, it is also necessary to have expertise in the chemical aspect of the cause of the fire. Because so many factors, the contractor, its original parent company, and many other parties are now in this one case, it has been decided that the trial will be conducted by the consensus considering the complexity of this case and the majority of the victims.

[Anchor]
As many as 11 people were named as Park Soon-kwan's lawyer. Isn't that an unusually high number?

[Lim Joo-hye]
A lot of numbers are right. Eleven lawyers are defending CEO Park Soon-kwan. If you look at it this way, it is a large number in terms of physical numbers, but this part is actually a very high sentence, and I think it played a role in the case that is receiving so much attention from so many people. The case is very complicated. As for the cause of the fire, it is necessary for a person with chemical or professional knowledge to defend, so I think there are a number of lawyers in charge of professional knowledge. Since illegal dispatch and subcontracting are also involved, it seems that there are many lawyers with expertise in these labor laws, and as a result, it has been confirmed that the charges are very serious if they are already being tried under arrest, so CEO Lee must have put a number of lawyers in place to seek leniency as much as possible. This prediction is possible.

[Anchor]
You said that the trial is going on today and the case is quite complicated. What will be the key issue in today's trial?

[Lim Joo-hye]
As I said, it's a very complicated trial. It's also a very unfortunate trial. This complexity can be evaluated as very complex because the issue itself targets a large number of people and requires specialized knowledge to determine the cause. Unfortunately, the fact that this is a predicted talent has been confirmed as a result of the investigation by the investigative agency. In this case, in order to see how far CEO Park Soon-kwan can be held accountable in this trial, the issue will be to what extent Aricel took appropriate measures to prevent fires and other safety accidents as much as possible in accordance with the Occupational Safety and Health Act and related laws. As it is already known, it has been confirmed that unskilled workers have been put in place to meet the delivery schedule, and a fire broke out in a similar way just before this major disaster occurred, and despite the opportunity to take safety measures once, they have not come up with such measures. I think these points will be a very important basis for violating the Serious Accident Punishment Act. In this trial, if this was a predicted talent, it is expected that these parts will be mainly discussed to what extent they could have prevented it with their own responsibility.

[Anchor]
We need to watch what kind of story will come out in the first trial in a while and what Park Soon-kwan will say to the victims.

Let's move on to the next topic. Let's watch the related video first.

[Anchor]
It's a very absurd incident again. A few days ago, we told you about a car accident during the National Sports Festival marathon in case 2, and earlier, there was another incident where participants of the marathon were injured by a golf ball?

[Lim Joo-hye]
That's right. I think this expression is really appropriate, but it was an incident where a golf ball suddenly flew from a really clear sky. This was even a marathon race under way. During the marathon, there was a victim who was running on the road near the golf course and was hit around his chin by this golf ball that literally flew in. The problem didn't end here, and other marathon participants were also reported to have been hit by a golf ball after that, so it was a very dangerous situation where two victims were killed in a row.

[Anchor] It feels irresponsible to enter a nearby golf course where
has an accident. Because there were not one victim but two victims, but there was no CCTV, so we can't check who caused the accident, did you say this?

[Lim Joo-hye]
That's right. If this problem has occurred twice in a row, the responsibility for negligent management will inevitably be a problem. And there seems to be a part of greater criticism in that the golf course contacted immediately after such damage occurred, but there was no response and another accident occurred after that. First of all, the golf course is saying that it is difficult to confirm who hit the golf ball because there is currently no CCTV in every hole. And rather than preparing active measures, the victims are in a very frustrating situation because they only reveal this position that they will resolve it in consultation with insurance companies.

[Anchor]
There is a risk of additional accidents. In this regard, it is said that the golf team is planting trees to prevent additional accidents, but it does not seem to be a sufficient explanation.

[Lim Joo-hye]
That's right. In fact, a golf ball can be a weapon in some cases. In many cases, large and small disputes arise due to golf balls that have been hit incorrectly in the past. In some cases, there have been actual incidents of blindness. It can be very dangerous, so even though golf courses have to make every effort to manage it safely, it is difficult to plant additional trees as a countermeasure, or in this case, it is difficult to identify the cause. This kind of response is not very appropriate. The rounding continues every eight minutes on the day, making it difficult to specify exactly who was hit by the ball, leaving a regret that the golf course should respond more actively to this.

[Anchor]
Then, I'm also curious about this part of what responsibility can be held to the golf course in the event of an accident like this, or what responsibility can be held to the person who hit the golf ball.

[Lim Joo-hye]
In this case, the ball flew out of the golf course. There was a marathon on the road, and it was said to be a road near the golf course, but if someone hit the wrong ball and flew outside and paid for the face of the person who was outside, this part seems to have no choice but to hold the responsibility of managing the balls safely on the golf course. Therefore, it seems necessary to check the facts first. Of course, it is necessary to check which direction it flew from and whether it is the ball from the golf course, but I think we can point out the poor aspect of the golf course's safe management obligations. So far, it is not yet clear who hit the ball, but if you think about a specific case, whether you can hold the person responsible for injuring someone as a kind of negligence, this can also be an issue.

However, in the past, we used to say that such wrong batting is often a slice or a hook on a golf course. In particular, if novice amateur golfers miss the ball too much to the right or go too far to the left, this is common in some cases. Therefore, it is the management responsibility of the golf course to ensure that the ball can be found safely in the golf course at least when this happens. If this is not proven, it may be difficult to hold the person who hit the ball criminally responsible at least.

[Anchor]
We've pointed out the responsibility. I'm also curious about the compensation part. The golf course said that it will proceed with damage compensation with the insured insurance. Then, as you said earlier, there are even cases of blindness after being hit by a golf ball, so to what extent can you compensate?

[Lim Joo-hye]
I think there will be aspects to check such as the maximum compensation limit for insurance that you are subscribing to at the golf course. Basically, not only some material damage, but in this case, there are parts that caused personal damage to people, so the compensation limit for this part will be clearly set. First, it seems that the insurance company of the golf course will be able to cover these parts as much as possible, and as I said, first, the company will lose the golf course, and in the case of the responsibility to manage it safely, it can also be questioned by safety managers who are in charge of such parts, such as game assistants, and as mentioned earlier, if you caused such injuries through mistakes, you will be charged with negligence.

[Anchor]
One of the victims filed a complaint saying that the golf course neglected safety management and caused an accident, so where do you think the issue will be if a legal battle breaks out?

[Lim Joo-hye]
From the victim's point of view, it's a very unfair situation. We were walking down the street and we were driving when a golf ball suddenly flew in. It's a dizzying situation just thinking about it. In the end, because of these points, I asked the golf club about the aspect of intentionally not managing these parts properly and now filed a complaint, but in the end, the issue is how safe this golf course was managed. At least, whether the ball was equipped with all the parts such as high fences and fences to prevent it from going out of the golf course. And in fact, it will be an important issue in determining whether novice golfers faithfully guided these areas when they hit the ball, and whether they actually fulfilled their safety management obligations at the trial.

[Anchor]
And I personally think that the marathon course should be set away from the golf course.

Let's move on to the last topic we prepared. Let's watch the related video.

[Anchor]
You saw a lovely dog. A man in his 70s who beat his neighbor's dog to death was fined in the second trial following the first trial. By the way, the motive of the crime is that the dog barks at him, and this is why?

[Lim Joo-hye]
That's right. It's a very unfortunate incident. So, it was a pet dog, as you can see, that the dog in the neighbor's house broke into the neighbor's house because it barked at him and is raising it in the house. A tragic accident occurred in which this dog eventually died by indiscriminately assaulting the dog in the house and hitting the dog. In this regard, following the first trial, the second trial was fined KRW 6 million for holding the perpetrator responsible for property damage. Some point out that the penalty of 6 million won is too light.

[Anchor] I think
is light. Because this dog, someone would have been like a family, but why was the penalty only 6 million won?

[Lim Joo-hye]
To take a deeper look at this issue, even though the neighbor was dissuaded, he went into the house and continued to assault the dog, and the owner tried to enter another room with the dog, but he even pushed the owner. It seems possible to evaluate that the nature of the crime is very poor, but in the end, the problem seems to be in the applicable legal provisions. This is a property damage. We have been talking about the problems of this law several times before, but we are such pets as companion, children together, and friends, but their legal status is an object. It is evaluated as nothing more than a bag, a cell phone, a car, etc. that we carry, so this is not a life-threatening thing, but a legal evaluation of something that made it unusable, so that it did not fulfill its utility, so it was ultimately sentenced to a fine.

[Anchor]
But this man in his 70s. Did you make this claim that you were only self-defense or over-defense?

[Lim Joo-hye]
However, the claim of self-defense was not accepted. The perpetrator claimed that it was self-defense because it happened in order for the pet dog to jump on me and defend it. However, there must have been a detailed statement from the dog's owner, and it has not been confirmed that the dog was highly aggressive when looking at the size or species of the dog to be considered an attacking dog first. Therefore, these points were taken into account, and the claim of self-defense was not accepted.

[Anchor]
Whenever news of such animal abuse comes out, it is a very soft punishment, like a fine of 6 million won today, and this controversy continues, can't the legal status of this dog change? How do you see it?

[Lim Joo-hye]
In fact, there's a very complex aspect. When we express ourselves as dogs and dogs, can we evaluate the lives of pets and humans together? If so, it is a very difficult question because it is possible to point out whether this part of killing a dog can be ruled as a murder, but nevertheless, at least can this pet be evaluated only as an object? There is no choice but to point out that something different should be given. Now that the fine has been sentenced, many people say it is too soft punishment, but if you think about why it is a fine, for example, if someone breaks down a part like a mobile phone and wants me to punish the other person, it is possible to compensate financially. So, if there is sufficient financial compensation, the damage can be recovered, and in the case of property damage, this kind of punishment comes out. In fact, in this case, if the victim had no choice but to watch his dog die in front of his eyes, it would be a trauma. Because of those points, can this pet's status now be treated as a property damage, especially? Voices are also gaining strength that the punishment standard needs to be raised.

[Anchor]
I think many people feel uncomfortable about comparing pets to objects. As the perception has changed, I think the legal system should also change.

So far, I've talked with lawyer Lim Joo-hye. Thank you.