A 20-year-old who fell asleep in his car after drinking crashed into an air conditioner, but was found not guilty… why?

A man in his 20s who was put on trial on charges of drunk driving was found not guilty in the first and second trials.

According to the legal community on the 26th, Daejeon District Court’s Criminal Appellate Division 1 (Chief Judge Na Kyung-seon) dismissed the prosecutor’s appeal in the appeal trial of Mr. A, in his 20s, who was indicted on charges of violating the Road Traffic Act (drinking driving) and was acquitted in the first trial.

Mr. A was brought to trial on charges of drunk driving after drinking alcohol at a restaurant in Geumsan-gun, South Chungcheong Province, at around 5 a.m. on September 10th of last year, then getting into his car parked in front of the restaurant with a friend.

At that time, Mr. A got into the car and fell asleep, then urinated nearby and got back into the car.

At this time, the car’s brake lights repeatedly turned on and off and then suddenly turned off, causing the car to move forward several meters. In the end, the car crashed into a flower pot and an air conditioner outdoor unit placed in front of the restaurant.

After the accident, Mr. A continued to stay in the car with his 먹튀검증friend and fell asleep, and it is said that around 7:30 a.m. on the same day, a nearby merchant discovered this and reported it to the police.

As a result of the breathalyzer test, Mr. A’s blood alcohol concentration was 0.130%, which exceeds the license revocation standard (0.08%).

At trial, Mr. A stated, “I slept in the car because I couldn’t get a designated driver. I remember starting the car to turn on the air conditioner while I was sleeping, but I don’t remember driving. When I woke up in the morning, the car had hit an object in front of the store.” did.

The first trial court ruled, “Considering that the road in question is a sloping downhill road, there is a possibility that the gear shift device was accidentally touched.”

He then declared Mr. A not guilty, saying, “If the defendant had intentionally tried to drive the vehicle, it does not appear that he would have continued to sleep while leaving the vehicle unattended even after the accident.”

This cited the Supreme Court precedent that ruled in April 2004 that ‘if the car moves by touching the gear without the intention of making the car move, or if the car moves due to unsafe parking conditions, road conditions, etc., it is not considered driving.’

The prosecutor appealed the first trial ruling, claiming there was an illegal misconception of facts, but the second trial court also dismissed the original trial ruling, finding it justifiable.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top