Assistance From a Traffic Accident Attorney | Non-Referral for a Client in a Hit-and-Run Injury Case

On the day of the incident, the client caused a traffic accident by striking the elbow of a passing pedestrian while driving the wrong way down a one-way street.

The client returned home without realizing that the pedestrian had been struck.

The police subsequently investigated the matter as a hit-and-run injury traffic accident, and during questioning the client denied the charge.

However, during the second round of questioning, the client, who was under pressure from the police and who had a prior conviction for drunk driving, admitted the charge out of fear.

Ultimately, the client, whose driver's license was revoked on the hit-and-run injury charge, urgently needed the license because the client was engaged in driving-related work.

Accordingly, in order to resolve this unfair situation and obtain a Non-Referral decision, the client requested assistance from a traffic accident attorney.

The traffic accident attorney closely examined the client's circumstances from the early stages of the case.

At the time, the client sought to explain the course of the accident accurately, but the police repeated the same questions for about five hours, in a manner that appeared aimed at obtaining a confession.

The attorney emphasized that, under this pressure, the client ultimately gave a statement that did not accord with the facts.

The traffic accident attorney emphasized, on the basis of a Supreme Court precedent (Supreme Court Decision 99Do3910, decided February 25, 2000), that the charge of hit-and-run causing injury was not established.

In this case, however, the client was entirely unaware that the victim's elbow had come into contact with the vehicle, and at the time of the accident there were no circumstances, such as drinking, driving without a license, or lack of insurance, that would have given any reason to leave the scene.

Accordingly, the traffic accident attorney focused on arguing that it was difficult to conclude that the client had intentionally left the scene of the accident, that is, that it could not be definitively held that an “intent to flee” had been proved to the degree of excluding reasonable doubt.

The client submitted a certificate of automobile insurance as evidence to prove that, at the time of the incident, the client was covered by both comprehensive vehicle insurance and driver's insurance.

On this basis, the traffic accident attorney emphasized that the client was fully in a position to compensate the victim for the resulting damages.

If the crime of hit-and-run causing injury is established, the offender is subject to the following punishment under Article 5-3 (Aggravated Punishment of Drivers of Fleeing Vehicles) of the Act on Aggravated Punishment of Specific Crimes.

In addition to such criminal punishment, administrative disadvantages, such as revocation of the driver's license, may also arise.

Article 5-3 of the Act on Aggravated Punishment of Specific Crimes

A hit-and-run injury case is by no means a minor matter, and because criminal punishment and administrative disadvantages may follow at the same time, it is important to respond promptly from the early stages of the case.

In traffic accident cases such as hit-and-run causing injury, Daeryun Law Firm closely reviews the course of the client's statements and the circumstances of the accident from the early stages of the case.

The firm analyzes the case as a whole, including the circumstances at the accident scene, the extent of the harm, and whether insurance coverage exists, in order to examine whether the hit-and-run injury charge is established, and, where necessary, systematically organizes and presents the client's position on the basis of Supreme Court precedents and relevant legal principles.

If you become involved in a hit-and-run injury case in a situation such as the one described above, please feel free to request assistance from Daeryun Law Firm through 🔗a legal consultation appointment.