Previously, the role of sanctions, such as preventive administration and punishment for industrial accidents, was mainly played by the Occupational Safety and Health Act(OSHA). However, the OSHA and subordinate laws stipulate the implementation of professional and technical duty obligations, so on-site middle managers are responsible for non-compliance, and there were not many cases in which senior management was sentenced to punishment even when an actual industrial accident death occurred. In particular, in the process of establishing multi-tiered contracting relationships and engaging in profit-making activities, industrial accident prevention measures were not properly implemented for workers belonging to small-scale supply companies that contributed to the operation of the business. As a result of repeated incidents of workers dying, a social trend was formed calling for legal sanctions that could practically guarantee the prevention of industrial accidents at industrial sites that occur during the company"s profit-making activities. As a result, the OSHA, which significantly strengthened the mandatory regulations for contractors, was completely revised, and the Serious Accidents Punishment Act(SAPA), which broadly stipulated the criminal liability of senior management (especially of contracting companies), was enacted and implemented. The SAPA is an uneconomical legislation as it is an overlapping regulation as the same and similar obligations are stipulated in the OSHA, etc., even two years after its implementation during the legislative process. Although it is a special criminal law, the structural requirements are not clear and it imposes heavy punishment and punitive damages. There was a lot of criticism that the regulation had too much influence on the industry. Taking these criticisms into consideration, this article examines the meaning of substantive governance, operation, and management, which are indicators of relationships such as contracts, among the provisions of the SAPA applicable to relationships such as contracts, services, and consignments, as well as the subject of obligation and the subject of protection. Review the interpretation of the regulations. The SAPA has no definitions regarding relationships such as contracting, and does not distinguish between the contents of obligations corresponding to the legal status according to contractual relationships in the definition of workers subject to protection, so in the future, the subject of obligation, the subject of protection, and the contents of obligations must be distinguished separately. Therefore, it needs to be clearly defined. In addition, under the current law, when interpreting the limitations on the scope of liability in Articles 4 and 5, there is no choice but to follow the normative interpretation of the contract relationship under the OSHA, so in fact, there is no practical benefit in separately stipulating Articles 4 and 5. It seems also believed that this should be revised in the future to increase the predictability of offenders and the effectiveness of law enforcement by defining the SAPA more clearly and systematically in relation to the OSHA.