Battery CEO's 4-year sentence upheld over fire that killed 23, mostly foreigners
Bereaved family members of workers killed in the 2024 Aricell factory fire weep during a press conference outside the Supreme Court in Seoul, Tuesday. Yonhap
The Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld a four-year prison sentence for Park Soon-kwan, CEO of lithium battery maker Aricell, over a factory fire that killed 23 workers, mostly foreigners, more than two years ago.
The court dismissed appeals by prosecutors and the defendants, leaving intact an appellate ruling that sentenced Park's son, Park Joong-un, a senior executive at the company, to seven years in prison, along with a fine of 1 million won ($750). The court also upheld an 800 million won fine against Aricell.
The fire at the company’s factory in Hwaseong, Gyeonggi Province, on June 24, 2024, killed 17 Chinese nationals, one Lao national and five Koreans, and injured nine others.
The blaze began on the second floor of Building No. 3, where workers inspected and packaged finished batteries, and spread rapidly as batteries exploded.
The CEO was indicted on charges of failing to fulfill his statutory safety obligations, including checking for workplace hazards and preparing a manual for responding to serious accidents.
The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s ruling that the chief executive bore the duties and responsibilities imposed under the Serious Accidents Punishment Act.
The top court also upheld the finding that Aricell’s risk assessment rules failed to adequately account for the specific hazards of manufacturing batteries using lithium, which poses an explosion risk.
A district court initially sentenced both the CEO and his son to 15 years in prison. But the appeals court cut their sentences to four and seven years, respectively, after overturning some charges and taking into account compensation settlements with bereaved families.
The son’s acquittal on charges related to emergency exits and passageways hinged on how the court interpreted workplace safety regulations.
Partitions and a temporary wall made of sandwich panels stood between the second-floor work area, where 21 of the 23 victims were found, and its exit. Some survivors were injured while jumping from windows to escape.
The district court found that the son had violated his obligations to install emergency exits and keep them readily accessible.
The appeals court, however, ruled that the relevant regulations imposed the installation requirement on a building-by-building basis, rather than on each floor. It found that an emergency exit on the first floor of Building No. 3, where hazardous materials including lithium were handled, was sufficient to meet the requirement.
It also found no clear legal basis defining emergency passageways or setting standards for their installation, and therefore no grounds to impose such an obligation.
The son’s conviction for professional negligence resulting in death and injury nevertheless stood based on other breaches of his duty of care.