This article is based on the recent Supreme Court decision on Article 66–2 of the Industrial Safety and Health Act, which calls for the criminal responsibility of the employer in the event of a worker being killed or injured because of violation of the safety measure, I want to critically analyze some of the problems that appear. There was some comment on the judgment of the labor law in academia, and it was positively evaluated that the significance of the case was further on the position of the Supreme Court. And it is pointing out the problem of the law of the industrial safety health law itself. However, my judgment is that there is not a change in the judiciary that recognizes the nature of the employer as an employer in the case of the rise of the contractor’s worker, but because the employee of the laborer accidentally performed work supervision duties at the accident site, But only as an employer in the punishment rule, and as a result, the original company was punished, but it does not appear to be a judicial judgment with great significance. If the employees of the original company are not sent to the work site where there is a possibility of accidents in the future, the possibility of punishment by the original employer is still insufficient if they are supervised more poorly. However, in my judgment, the object of judgment is the inherent problem of the Industrial Safety and Health Act, namely, the listed list of the constitutional elements of the crime, which is appended to the end of the individual statute, a special penalty constitutional requirement called “administrative criminal law” The Court has not specifically pointed this point, but instead acknowledged the corporation’s liability on the basis of exceptional facts. Although the Court recognizes the inherent limitations of the judiciary which must be bound by the given laws and the scope of the indicted cases, the Court is also concerned with the legality of the law, It should be pointed out.