Purpose: This study was executed for comparing response sequence based training between chest compression first training and searching for the effectiveness and easiness of operation of two different training methods. Methods: After obtaining the consent of participation to eighty-five railroad workers, we compared CPR performance by dividing them into two groups; usual CPR training method (response sequence based training, RSBT, 44 people) and our CPR training method(chest compression first training, CCFT, 41 people). The objective skill performances were evaluated by using the mannequin (JAMY-IV RECO, Kyotokagaku, Japan). Results: The difference in performing CPR steps and artificial ventilation success rate of RSBT group and that of CCFT group was shown not to be statistically different. Artificial compression success rate and compression depth of CCFT group compared to RSBT group was statistically high (p=0.006, 0.001). And the wrong-handposition rate of RSBT group compared to CCFT group was statistically high (p=0.000). Also, instructors` satisfaction about practical training operation of CCFT group compared to RSBT group was statistically high (p=0.001).Instructors reported that the students were focused and easily operable to CCFT training method. Conclusion: chest compression first training method is easy to perform to operate, not complex to operate, but effective in performance of student and easily operable by instructors also. If more effective CPR training methods will be studied based on our study, especially focused on ‘compression-first teaching skill’ and letting the students to perform well, we will expect more effective CPR trainings.