A man in his 40s, initially cleared in the first trial regarding the so-called “drinking after the accident” accusation, was convicted by the appeals court.
The Criminal Division 2-2 of the Daejeon District Court, presided over by Judge Kang Ju-ri, announced on the 30th that it reversed the lower court’s acquittal and sentenced A, who was charged with violating the Road Traffic Act (drunk driving), to one year in prison.
A was sent for trial, accused of driving his passenger car in Sejong City on June 16, 2024, around 2:00 a.m., with a blood alcohol level of 0.153%, surpassing the limit for license suspension.
The initial court of law found A not guilty, noting that it was not possible to definitively establish that he was operating a vehicle while intoxicated. It acknowledged A’s statement that he consumed more alcohol following the incident and was subsequently tested for alcohol levels.
As per the investigation, A was involved in an accident approximately at 2:09 a.m., when the passenger seat of his vehicle dropped into a waterway near his parents’ house in Sejong City. He contacted 112 around 3:14 a.m., stating, “The car fell into a ditch,” but the police returned to the station after being unable to locate him using GPS. Later, upon receiving a report from a witness claiming the driver was under the influence, the police performed an alcohol test on A around 4:57 a.m., which revealed a blood alcohol level of 0.153%.
A stated, “I returned to my parents’ house following the accident and consumed alcohol.”
The initial trial court recognized “a strong indication of drunk driving,” yet stated there was inadequate evidence to confirm that A was intoxicated during the accident. It highlighted that the prosecution was responsible for providing proof, considering the 2-hour and 30-minute interval between the accident and the alcohol test, along with A’s assertion of further drinking. The court also mentioned the absence of data—such as the quantity and timing of alcohol intake—necessary to calculate A’s blood alcohol level at the time of the accident using the Widmark formula.
The higher court arrived at a contrasting decision.
The court agreed with the prosecution’s position that A’s account—calling a friend after the accident, quickly walking to his parents’ house, consuming alcohol, and then returning to report to 112—did not align with typical experiences. The court deemed A’s story unlikely, noting that he made 11 phone calls during the time he claimed to have been drinking. It also took into account the testimony of the acquaintance, who mentioned that A was “very drunk” during their call after the accident. Furthermore, A provided conflicting statements to the police: he first admitted to driving while intoxicated but later requested that the matter be dropped. Additionally, although A claimed to have consumed more alcohol, no empty bottles were found in or around the car. He only told the police, “I threw the bottle into the mountains” or “please give me one chance.”
The higher court used the Widmark formula to calculate A’s blood alcohol level at the time of the accident, estimating it at 0.175%. It noted, “Although a traffic accident happened while driving while intoxicated, the defendant did not confess to the offense until the appellate hearing. Drunk driving is a very dangerous act that can lead to significant harm for innocent individuals, requiring severe consequences.”
jasdooit 
Leave a comment