CMIT/MIT 성분 가습기살균제로 인한 사망 사건 판결의 형사법적 쟁점 ― 서울중앙지방법원 2021. 1. 12. 선고 2019고합142,388,501 판결을 중심으로 ― = Criminal Law Issues in the Seoul Central District Court Decision of a Death Case Due to Humidifier Disinfectant of CMIT/MIT Ingredients

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

The humidifier disinfectant incident, the worst chemical accident in South Korean history, is often referred to as “another Sewol ferry disaster.” This is because the two different incidents are very similar in that large-scale casualties occurred, that the golden time (2006-2011 in the case of humidifiers) was missed, and that the government failed to manage the crisis.
Seoul Central District Court Decision 2019Gohab142,388,501 decided January 12, 2021 concerns the humidifier disinfectant containing CMIT/MIT ingredients manufactured or sold by SK Chemicals, Aekyung Industrial Co., Ltd., EMART Inc.. The nature of the raw material is different from the case of the humidifier disinfectant containing PHMG/PGH, which was already convicted by the Supreme Court in 2018. In this case, it did not lead to criminal prosecution as it failed to prove the causal relationship between the use of “Humidifier Mate” and the occurrence of lung disease. In 2019, the prosecution indicted 14 former and current executives and employees of SK Chemicals and Aekyung Industrial Co., Ltd. based on epidemiological investigation data from academia on the harmfulness of CMIT/MIT raw materials and research data submitted by the Ministry of Environment. The Seoul Central District Court held the hearing for two years and acquitted the defendants. This is because the causal relationship between the use of each humidifier disinfectant manufactured and sold by the defendants and the injury or death of the victims has not been proven in this case.
When manufacturers and distributors fail to faithfully fulfill their duty of care and produces or distributes defective products, and this results in an infringement such as injury or death to a consumer, manufacturers and distributors shall naturally bear criminal responsibility for it. In most cases of product liability under the criminal law, the issue of whether or not a negligence offense is established. At this time, the examination for a breach of the duty of care is the starting point for examining whether product liability is recognized under the criminal law. Nevertheless, the Seoul Central District Court proceeded with the trial, focusing on the proof of the causal relationship to the harmfulness of the defective product. As a result, the trial court has been transformed into a verification ground for the results of scientific tests on the harmfulness of CMIT/MIT raw materials.
Therefore, this paper examines how the German Federal Supreme Court dealt with the issue of determining causality in the leather protection spray case and the wood protection product case in relation to the attribution of responsibility of product liability under the criminal law(Ⅱ). In addition, in [2019Gohab142,388,501 Decision], the method of determining the causal relationship selected by the Seoul Central District Court was examined in what way it was problematic(Ⅲ). And finally, based on these discussions, the following conclusion are drawn: In order to recognize product liability under the criminal law, the causal relationship is required. At this time, it is more important not to rigorously prove the causal relationship with respect to the “harmfulness” of the product itself, but rather to prove the causal relationship between the breach of the duty of care and the consequences of the infringement of injury or death(Ⅳ).

참고문헌 (Reference)

• 1 조병선, "환경형법" 청주대학교출판부 1998
• 2 이재상, "형사소송법(제12판)" 박영사 2019
• 3 이석배, "형법상 제조물책임과 인과관계의 확정" 대한의료법학회 17 (17): 3-28, 2016
• 4 김동률, "형법상 제조물 책임에 있어 기업 경영진에 대한 보증인 지위의 인정근거 - 피혁스프레이 판결을 둘러싼 독일에서의 논의를 중심으로 -" 한양법학회 25 (25): 385-405, 2014
• 5 김재윤, "현대형법의 위기와 과제" 전남대학교출판부 2009
• 6 김정현, "집단적 의사결정의 부작위적 접근 - 다중적 인과관계를 중심으로 -" 한국비교형사법학회 20 (20): 1-26, 2018
• 7 전지연, "제조물의 하자에 의한 형사법상 책임에 관한 연구" 한국형사정책연구원 1996
• 8 김학태, "의료상 제조물상의 형사책임" 3 (3): 2002
• 9 원형식, "부진정부작위범의 인과관계와 객관적 귀속" 중앙법학회 12 (12): 111-136, 2010
• 10 허황, "단체결정(Gremienentscheidungen)의 가벌성에 관한 연구 -범죄로 이끄는 단체결정에 참여한 자는 동시범(Nebentäterschaft)인가 아니면 공동정범(Mittäterschaft)인가?-" 한국비교형사법학회 19 (19): 27-70, 2017
• 11 김성룡, "다수인의 공동의 의사결정에서의 형법해석학적 문제점- 과실범에 있어서 부작위의 공동정범 -" 한국비교형사법학회 4 (4): 6-176, 2002
• 12 김유근, "기업의 형사법적 책임 - 책임귀속상의 문제점 -" 한양법학회 24 (24): 59-93, 2013
• 13 박태현, "가습기살균제 피해구제를 위한 특별법상 인과관계 추정조항과 “위해 상당 기여(Material Contribution to Risk)” 기준" 사법발전재단 1 (1): 167-212, 2020
• 14 Kaufmann, Armin, "Tatbestandsmäßigkeit und Verursachung in Contergan- Verfahren" 569-, 1971
• 15 Higendorf, Eric, "Strafrechtliche Produzentenhaftung in der "Risikogesellschaft""
• 16 Roxin, Claus, "Strafrecht Allgemeiner Teil" 1997
• 17 Brammsen, Joerg, "Kausalitäts- und Täterschaftsfragen bei Produktfehlern" 533-, 1991
• 18 발터페론, "1990년 7월 6일 독일연방최고법원의 형법적 제조물책임에 대한피혁보호분무기-판결" 청주대학교 법학연구소 8 : 1994