"Establish and implement an occupational safety and health management system." This is a core obligation imposed on management by the Serious Accidents Punishment Act, yet most transportation companies get stuck at this very point . What exactly are they supposed to create when they say “system”? Should they hire consultants, appoint a dedicated staff member, or purchase a thick manual?
To cut to the chase, what this law actually verifies isnot the thickness of the documentation but whether the record-keeping system is functioning. The phrase “inspect at least once every six months,” which appears repeatedly throughout the enforcement decree, is proof of this — It does not require a declaration that a system has been established, but rather dated records confirming that it is functioning every six months. Therefore, this article summarizes the requirements of the enforcement decree from a transportation company’s perspective and organizes four types of records— using four Excel sheets— that you can start keeping today, complete with ready-to-use templates.
If you’re wondering first whether you’re subject to these requirements—the law applies to any business with five or more regular employees, regardless of industry. The criteria for determining eligibility, including whether contract or subcontracted drivers are included, are summarized in the “Application Criteria for the Serious Accidents Punishment Act in the Transportation Industry.” This article begins with the question, “I know I’m subject to the law—now what do I need to do?”
The obligations of management are outlined in four categories under Article 4 of the Act: ① Establishment and implementation of a safety and health management system; ② Formulation and implementation of measures to prevent the recurrence of accidents; ③ Compliance with corrective orders issued by administrative agencies; ④ Management of compliance with obligations under safety and health-related laws and regulations. Among these, the detailed provisions for item ① are set forth in Article 4 of the Enforcement Decree; the table below lists only those provisions that actually apply to transportation companies.
| Enforcement Decree Item | Actions Required of Transportation Companies | Frequency | Records to Be Retained |
|---|---|---|---|
| Occupational Safety and Health Goals and Management Policies | Establish and post a safety policy in the CEO’s name (e.g., “No excessive scheduling; rest breaks guaranteed”) | Post after establishment | Verify policy manual and posting |
| Procedures for Identifying and Correcting Hazardous and Dangerous Factors | Identify and address risks by route, time of day, and driver (e.g., consecutive driving, sections prone to drowsiness) | Inspect at least once per half-year | Inspection Results, Corrective Actions, and Inspection Date |
| Allocation and Execution of Occupational Safety and Health Budget | Allocate a separate budget for safety equipment, training, and rest facilities, and ensure its actual execution | Allocated once a year | Budget items and execution details |
| Performance Evaluation of Safety Officers | Designate safety officers and evaluate their performance | At least once per half-year | Evaluation Criteria and Results |
| Soliciting Employee Feedback | Listen to and incorporate drivers’ feedback regarding risk factors, fatigue, and scheduling | At least once per half-year | Date of Consultation, Feedback, and Action |
| Manual for Preparing for Serious Accidents | Establish and review procedures for reporting, first aid, and reporting in the event of an accident | Inspections at least once per half-year | Manuals and inspection records |
| Ensure safety when contracting, outsourcing, or entrusting work | Safety Standards and Inspection Procedures for Leased and Outsourced Vehicles | Inspect at least once per half-year | Standards and inspection results |
| Inspection of Compliance with Relevant Laws and Regulations (Enforcement Decree, Article 5) | Verification of compliance with DTG submission, mandatory training for transportation workers, etc. | Inspection at least once per half-year | Inspection Results and Corrective Actions for Non-Compliance |
Six out of the eight lines include the phrase “once every half-year.” This repetition highlights the nature of this law— it is not a document created once and then set aside, but a record that must be updated every six months. Therefore, preparation is not a document creation project but the establishment of a record-keeping routine, and the four items below constitute the minimum units of that routine.
This is a record of identifying and addressing risk factors in our operations once every half-year. Six columns are sufficient.
| Inspection Date | Risk Factor | Verification Method | Corrective Action | Date of Action | Person in Charge |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| October 14, 2026 | Late-night routes exceeding 4 consecutive hours of operation | Cross-checking the schedule with DTG records | Incorporated a 30-minute break; revised the schedule | October 20, 2026 | Scheduling Team Leader |
| October 14, 2026 | Frequent Drowsy Driving Incidents During Early Morning Shifts (Driver Interviews) | Driver Interviews, Near-Miss Accident Records | Guidance on Rest Breaks Before the First Run, Health Check | October 22, 2026 | Safety Manager |
The starting point is not a grand risk assessment, but rather a list of accidents and near-misses from the past year and the “close calls” described by drivers. If we’ve identified them, corrected them, and there’s time left, the core objective of this item is met.
| Date | Method | Target Group/Number of Respondents | Opinions Raised | Implementation/Action | Reason for Non-Implementation |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| October 14, 2026 | 15-minute session during the monthly meeting + anonymous survey | 19 out of 23 (including 4 contract drivers) | Short intervals between early morning dispatches cause drowsiness | Extend the interval to 20 minutes | - |
| Lack of rest areas at bus depots | Under review | Budget consultation required |
Two factors determine quality. First, include contract and commissioned drivers inthe headcount—failing to account for them while focusing only on directly employed staff is the most common oversight in practice. Second, for any opinions not incorporated, include the reasons why —a record stating “we heard and made a decision” demonstrates that the procedure was followed, rather than simply noting that the opinions were heard.
This is the most important of the four items and the record investigators look for first when an accident occurs.
| Date | Driver | Affiliation | Confirmed Dangerous Driving | Verification Method | Action | Date of Action | Follow-up Verification |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| October 7, 2026 | Kim ○○ | Contractor | Repeated signs of drowsiness between 2:00 and 3:00 p.m. | Ride-along inspection | Interview, rest break adjustment | Oct. 8 | 10-21 Recheck — No issues |
| October 12, 2026 | Park ○○ | Company-Operated | 3 Speeding Violations | DTG Monthly Analysis | 1 hour of safety training | 10–13 | DTG re-verification scheduled for November |
The key is to ensure that “Verification → Action → Follow-up Verification” form a continuous process. There is one point to note: records where only the “Verification” column is filled out and the “Action” column is left blank may be viewed more negatively than having no record at all—because it serves as evidence that a known risk was ignored. Starting to keep records means you must also begin taking corrective actions.
Getting started is simple. Each month, use the DTG—which is already installed in all commercial vehicles—to identify the drivers with the highest instances of speeding or sudden acceleration/deceleration, interview them, and record the results in this table—this creates the first entry in the first month. However, you should be aware that there are areas the DTG cannot detect. Drowsiness and failure to pay attention to the road ahead—the leading causes of accidents—do not trigger the DTG because they occur while speed and route remain within normal limits. Realistically, this gap should be filled through on-board inspections and interviews, or supplemented with devices that detect the driver’s condition.
For every accident or near-miss, document the cause, countermeasures, and the date of implementation verification:
| Date of Occurrence | Type | Summary of Circumstances | Cause | Measures to Prevent Recurrence | Date of Implementation Verification |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| September 30, 2026 | Near-Miss Incident | Motorcycle came too close while making a right turn | Failure to check blind spot | Training on coming to a complete stop before turning right; inspection of auxiliary mirrors | October 10, 2026 |
The representative personally reviews and signsthe form below every half-year.
| Semiannual Inspection Items (Verified by CEO) | First Half | Second Half |
|---|---|---|
| Record ① Were risk factors identified and addressed? | ⬜ | ⬜ |
| Record ② Were employee opinions heard and incorporated? (Including contract and outsourced workers) | ⬜ | ⬜ |
| Record ③ Are checks for risky driving by individual drivers and follow-up actions being consistently carried out? | ⬜ | ⬜ |
| Record ④ Were measures to prevent recurrence actually implemented? | ⬜ | ⬜ |
| Was the safety budget executed as allocated? | ⬜ | ⬜ |
| Are the accident response manuals up to date? | ⬜ | ⬜ |
| CEO’s Signature and Date |
This single page serves as the practical solution to the Enforcement Decree’s requirement for “inspections at least once every six months.” Since the obligations of the management representative do not cease through delegation, the signatory must be the CEO, not a designated staff member.
Penalties are not determined solely by the occurrence of an accident. What investigative authorities verify is whether these records were actually being maintained prior to the accident.
Even in the case of the same fatal accident, the outcomes for three companies can differ. A company with no records at all will be found to have clearly failed in its obligations; a company that has equipment and documentation but no records of corrective actions may be assessed as having “knowingly neglected” the issue; and a company that maintained a continuous cycle of verification, corrective action, and follow-up verification may avoid punishment or receive a reduced sentence on the grounds that it fulfilled its obligations. The statutory penalty for fatal accidents is imprisonment of at least one year or a fine of up to 1 billion won for management officials; as the Supreme Court’s Sentencing Commission is currently working on establishing new sentencing guidelines, the severity of sentences is expected to increase. — This trend and the overall strategy of identification, intervention, and documentation were discussed in “Establishment of Sentencing Guidelines under the Act on the Punishment of Serious Accidents: What Should the Transportation Industry Prepare For?”
To clear up one common misunderstanding—comprehensive insurance and mutual aid programs do not help in this context. This is because insurance covers civil compensation for victims, whereas this law pertains to the criminal liability of individual management officials.
recording item ③ becomes overwhelming once a fleet exceeds several dozen vehicles. Extracting DTG data every month to identify top drivers is a task in itself, and critical incidents like drowsiness or failure to maintain forward attention aren’t even captured in the DTG data.
This is where AI safe driving solutions integrate with the record-keeping system. A.I.MATICS’ aid platform uses AI cameras in vehicles to instantly detect risks such as drowsiness or inattention and alert the driver; details of these events, along with the manager’s confirmation and follow-up actions, are automatically logged for each driver. In other words, the “Confirmation” column in Record ③ is automatically filled in, and whether improvements were made after training is reflected in the trend of the safe driving score, reducing the preparation of semi-annual checklists to the level of compiling monthly reports. A pilot project by the Korea Transportation Safety Authority (involving 13 transportation companies, 500 buses, and 1,615 drivers) confirmed that this method reduced drowsy driving by 99.7% and traffic signal violations by 87.6%. However, it must be made clear that installing the equipment itself does not fulfill regulatory obligations. It is still up to the company to determine what actions to take following a warning and to fill out the “action” section accordingly.
| Question | Answer |
|---|---|
| What Is a Safety and Health Management System? | It is not a document, but a record-keeping routine whose operation is verified every half-year—the standard is “inspection at least once every half-year” as stipulated in Article 4 of the Enforcement Decree |
| What is recorded? | ① Identification and correction of hazards ② Soliciting employee feedback (including contract workers) ③ Identification, corrective action, and follow-up verification of hazardous driving by driver ④ Recurrence prevention + CEO’s signature on the semi-annual inspection checklist |
| What is required? | As long as each record includes the date, person in charge, action taken, and follow-up verification, and there is a record verified by the representative every six months, the core requirements are met |
| First Step | Identify the drivers with the highest incidence of risky driving from this month’s DTG data, conduct interviews with them, and document the actions taken—this goes on the first line of Record ③ |
| Points to Note | Records that only show verification but lack any action taken can be used as evidence of “knowing but failing to act.” |
Have our company’s record-keeping system assessed to identify areas that can be automated
We’ll advise you on how many of the four record types can be automatically generated based on your fleet size and operating patterns.
A. It is a core obligation required of management representatives under Article 4 of the Act, and Article 4 of the Enforcement Decree specifies the detailed items (occupational safety and health objectives, procedures for identifying and mitigating risk factors, budget, evaluation of responsible personnel, consultation with stakeholders, response manuals, safety in subcontracting and outsourcing, and compliance inspections). Since most of these items require “inspection at least once every six months,” in practice, this is not a document created once but a system proven by dated records verifying its operation every six months.
A. Yes. If a company has five or more regular employees, it is subject to this requirement starting in January 2024, regardless of industry or size. However, small companies can get started without consulting services or a dedicated organization. — The minimum requirement is to maintain four records in Excel—a hazard register, records of employee feedback, a history of corrective actions for risky driving by each driver, and records of measures to prevent recurrence—and have the CEO sign the inspection checklist every half-year.
A. Under the Occupational Safety and Health Act, the obligation to appoint a safety manager varies by industry and company size, and most small-scale transportation companies are not subject to this requirement. However, the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Punishment of Serious Accidents defines the role of a safety officer and requires a semi-annual evaluation of their performance; therefore, you must designate a responsible person from among your existing employees and keep records of the designation and evaluation.
A. If the company manages dispatch, vehicle, and operation reports for a contract driver, that driver is likely to be deemed an “employee” under the law; therefore, it is safest to maintain records of training, verification, and corrective actions using the same format as for directly employed drivers. The most common oversight in practice is “having records for directly employed drivers but none for contract drivers,” and in the event of an accident, this gap becomes a point of contention.
A. It’s sufficient as a starting point, but it’s not the whole story. While speeding, sudden acceleration or deceleration, and continuous driving can be detected by DTG, driver conditions—such as drowsiness or failure to watch the road ahead, which account for a significant portion of accident causes—are not recorded by DTG because they occur while speed and route remain within normal limits. It is practical to supplement this with in-vehicle inspections and interviews, or to use devices that detect and record the driver’s condition in real time.
A. While it does not guarantee immunity, it is a key factor that determines the outcome. Since investigations verify compliance with obligations and the corresponding records, companies that have maintained a consistent cycle of “verification–action–follow-up verification” prior to the accident may avoid penalties or receive reduced sentences. Conversely, if there are no records, or if there are no records of corrective actions taken despite identifying risks, the likelihood of penalties for management (imprisonment of at least one year or a fine of up to 1 billion won for fatal accidents) increases significantly. Comprehensive insurance is intended for civil liability and cannot substitute for this criminal liability.
This article is general information summarizing provisions applicable to transportation companies based on the publicly available text of the Act on the Punishment of Serious Accidents and its Enforcement Decree; the forms provided are examples for reference only. Please consult a legal professional or the relevant Regional Office of Employment and Labor to confirm the applicability and scope of obligations for your specific company. Statistics are based on the results of a pilot project conducted by the Korea Transportation Safety Authority.