Violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents | Client Who Struck a Pedestrian While Turning Right Defended Down to a Fine With Daeryun's Assistance

The accident occurred on a late winter evening.

As usual, the client finished all the work at the company and set out on the way home.

The company and his home were a 20-minute drive apart, a familiar route he had traveled well over a hundred times.

A moment of carelessness was the problem. Ordinarily he would have made sure to press the brake while turning right, but for some reason, on that day, he failed to comply with the duty to come to a complete stop.

To make matters worse, at that junction at the time, a pedestrian was crossing the crosswalk.

As he turned right without pressing the brake, the pedestrian was ultimately struck by his car.

The injured pedestrian was taken to the hospital immediately and was diagnosed with an injury requiring 10 weeks of treatment.

To the client, who had caused the right-turn accident, the 🔗"12 categories of gross negligence" under the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents applied, and the case ultimately led to indictment.

Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents, Article 3 (Special Cases concerning Punishment)

① Where a driver of a vehicle commits the crime under Article 268 of the Criminal Act due to a traffic accident, he or she shall be punished by imprisonment without labor for not more than 5 years or by a fine not exceeding 20 million won.

- Criminal Act, Article 268 : A person who causes the death or injury of another by occupational negligence or gross negligence shall be punished by imprisonment without labor for not more than 5 years or by a fine not exceeding 20 million won.

② With respect to a driver who, through the operation of a vehicle, commits the crime of occupational negligence causing injury or gross negligence causing injury among the crimes under paragraph (1), as well as the crime under Article 151 of the Road Traffic Act, no public prosecution may be instituted against the express will of the victim. Provided, that this shall not apply where the driver of a vehicle commits the crime of occupational negligence causing injury or gross negligence causing injury among the crimes under paragraph (1) and flees without taking measures under Article 54 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, such as rescuing the victim, or flees after moving the victim away from the scene of the accident and abandoning the victim, where the driver commits the same crime and fails to comply with a request for a breath alcohol test in violation of Article 44 (2) of the Road Traffic Act, and where the driver commits the same crime due to any of the following acts.

1. Where the driver operated the vehicle in violation of a signal indicated by a traffic light or by a police officer or others directing traffic, or in violation of an instruction indicated by a safety sign indicating a no-passage zone or a temporary stop

2. Where the driver crossed the center line, or made a crossing, U-turn, or reverse in violation of Article 62 of the same Act

3. Where the driver operated the vehicle at a speed exceeding the speed limit by more than 20 kilometers per hour

4. Where the driver operated the vehicle in violation of the methods, prohibited times, or prohibited places for overtaking, or the prohibition of cutting in, or in violation of the method of overtaking on an expressway under Article 60 (2) of the same Act

5. Where the driver operated the vehicle in violation of the method for crossing a railroad crossing

6. Where the driver operated the vehicle in violation of the duty to protect pedestrians at a crosswalk

7. Where the driver operated the vehicle without obtaining a driver's license or a construction machinery operator's license, or without holding an international driving permit.

8. Where the driver operated the vehicle while under the influence of alcohol, or in a state in which normal driving was likely to be impossible due to the influence of drugs

9. Where the driver encroached upon a sidewalk on a road with a sidewalk installed, or operated the vehicle in violation of the method for crossing a sidewalk

10. Where the driver operated the vehicle in violation of the duty to prevent passengers from falling

11. Where, in a child protection zone, the driver caused bodily injury to a child by violating the duty to comply with the measures under paragraph (1) of the same Article and to drive with due care for the safety of children

12. Where the driver operated the vehicle without taking the measures necessary to prevent the cargo of the vehicle from falling

To obtain leniency from the court, one must show a sincere attitude of remorse.

This is because such a point is reflected in the factors the court considers in sentencing.

If there is a clear error in the facts set out in the indictment, it may be necessary to contest the matter in court, but where the basic facts are recognized, it is generally advisable to acknowledge the charged facts cleanly.

The client in this case likewise acknowledged all of the charges, from immediately after the accident through to the trial.

Even after the accident occurred, he immediately reported it to 119 and promptly carried out rescue measures.

In addition, he continuously conveyed a sincere apology to the victim's side.

In order to obtain a reduction of sentence, an explanation of the circumstances under which the accident was unavoidable is also necessary.

On the day of the accident, the client heard that his mother had suddenly lain down complaining of pain, and, in his haste, he took the wheel.

At the time, the vehicle running ahead of the client also made a right turn straight away without applying the brakes, and he likewise, without much thought, followed the vehicle in front, and the accident occurred.

Failing to comply with the duty to come to a temporary stop was a fault, but there were such circumstances behind the client's reduced attention.

As in this case, in instances involving one of the 12 categories of gross negligence, criminal punishment may be imposed even if the victim does not wish for it.

For this reason, the process of reaching a settlement with the victim and obtaining the victim's forgiveness may seem unnecessary.

However, the ‘intention of the victim’ carries significant weight in the trial as well. Therefore, if possible, a settlement should be pursued so as to first obtain leniency from the injured party.

The client likewise reached an amicable settlement with the victim's side during the trial.

Accordingly, the victim also expressed to the court the intention that he did not wish for the client to be punished.

As mentioned earlier, where a driver's conduct falls under one of the "12 categories of gross negligence," the driver becomes subject to criminal punishment regardless of the victim's intent.

If you are being investigated on a related charge or have been brought to trial, you should be sure to obtain assistance from an attorney with extensive experience in traffic accident trials.

Daeryun Law Firm operates a "Drunk Driving and Traffic Accident Response Group" led by veteran attorneys with an average of more than 20 years of legal experience.

If you have any inquiries regarding a related charge, please visit Daeryun Law Firm at any time to request a 🔗consultation.