Deals & Cases

Refusal of a breathalyzer test
Refusal of a breathalyzer testSummary order

Fleeing After Drunk Driving | Summary Order for a Client Who Fled After Refusing a Breath Test Following Drunk Driving

The client, who was arrested in the act of fleeing after drunk driving, sought out an attorney experienced in drunk driving cases after becoming involved in a criminal matter, having refused a breath test three or more times at the scene.

1. The Client Arrested for Fleeing After Drunk Driving

The client, who was arrested for fleeing after drunk driving following his refusal to comply with the officers' demand for a breath test three or more times, requested assistance from an attorney experienced in drunk driving cases ahead of police questioning.

The Circumstances of the Refusal of the Breath Test

After drinking at a restaurant, the client drove home in a passenger car and, on the way, caused an accident by striking a guardrail at the side of the road.

The officers who responded to the accident report demanded a breath test at the scene, but the client, fearing criminal punishment, refused it and left the scene.

A breath test was subsequently attempted, but the reading did not register properly, so the matter ultimately amounted to a refusal of a breathalyzer test, and the client became involved in a drunk driving case.

Stating, "I had no intention whatsoever of fleeing after drunk driving," the client requested the assistance of an attorney experienced in drunk driving cases to resolve the matter.

Summary of the circumstances of the case of fleeing after drunk driving

2. Assistance Provided in the Case of Fleeing After Drunk Driving

In the case of fleeing after drunk driving, the attorney comprehensively reviewed favorable mitigating factors, including whether the client was a first-time offender, the client's voluntary remorse, the concrete efforts made to prevent recidivism, and the petitions for leniency from family and acquaintances.

On this basis, the attorney established a systematic response strategy so that the investigative authorities and the court would give the fullest possible consideration to leniency in assessing the case.

Suwon District Court, Judgment of August 18, 2022, 2022No2546

In a case involving refusal of a breath test, the court has rendered a lenient disposition, such as a suspended sentence or a fine, by taking into account as favorable circumstances the facts that the defendant was a first-time offender, deeply reflected on his wrongdoing, demonstrated concrete efforts to prevent recidivism such as selling his vehicle, maintained clear social ties as shown by petitions for leniency from family and acquaintances, and that there were circumstances warranting consideration in how he came to commit the offense.

Relying on this precedent, the attorney also formulated and pursued a strategy in the client's case aimed at securing favorable sentencing and leniency.

Voluntary Remorse and Measures to Prevent Recidivism

From immediately after the incident, the client deeply recognized his wrongdoing and was sincerely remorseful.

Accordingly, the attorney experienced in drunk driving cases emphasized to the investigative authorities that the client's remorse was not merely words but was being translated into actual conduct, highlighting that the following concrete efforts were underway.

· Eliminating the possibility of recidivism by selling the vehicle

· Payment of the costs to repair the property damage caused by the traffic accident

· Completion of drunk driving prevention education and a pledge

Demonstrating Social Reputation and a Sense of Responsibility

The client had ordinarily performed his work diligently and fulfilled his social responsibilities.

Accordingly, the attorney experienced in drunk driving cases obtained petitions from colleagues and systematically emphasized the client's customary diligence and sense of responsibility so that the investigative authorities could give them due consideration.

In addition, the attorney organized the client's record of charitable activities and submitted donation receipts as evidence.


The attorney experienced in drunk driving cases strategically used these materials to establish the client's good social reputation and sense of responsibility, and to ensure that they were actively reflected as grounds for leniency.

Securing Leniency by Emphasizing First-Time Offender Status and a Momentary Lapse in Judgment

The client's act of fleeing after drunk driving and refusing the breath test arose from a momentary lapse in judgment, stemming from his fear of criminal punishment immediately after the accident.

The client subsequently came to a deep realization that his conduct had been wrong and made efforts to set matters right, voluntarily visiting the police station to request a re-test.

Accordingly, the attorney experienced in drunk driving cases actively emphasized to the investigative authorities that the client was a first-time offender and his voluntary willingness to reflect, clearly conveying that the matter was a momentary lapse in judgment and providing assistance so that the client could receive the greatest possible leniency.

3. Outcome of the Case of Fleeing After Drunk Driving: 'Summary Order Imposing a Fine'

Outcome of the case of fleeing after drunk driving, a summary order

In the case of fleeing after drunk driving, the court, taking into account the mitigating circumstances and the client's remorse and concrete efforts, issued a summary order imposing a fine.

In response, the client expressed deep gratitude, saying, "Thanks to my attorney, I was able to minimize the punishment, and I feel great relief and appreciation."

What Is a Summary Order?

A summary order is a procedure for minor criminal cases punishable by a fine, a minor fine, or confiscation, in which the court promptly imposes a fine based solely on the written materials submitted by the prosecutor, without a public trial.

The defendant may object by requesting a formal trial within seven days from the date the summary order is served.

4. Standards for Punishment of Fleeing After Drunk Driving

Fleeing after drunk driving mainly occurs when a person fails to comply with a police sobriety checkpoint, drives away from the scene, and then ignores a stop order or refuses a breath test.

Such conduct is regarded as a refusal of a breathalyzer test and as fleeing from enforcement, making it subject to criminal punishment, and it may be accompanied by administrative disadvantages such as suspension or revocation of the driver's license.

Level of Punishment for Refusal of a Breathalyzer Test

Road Traffic Act, Article 148-2

Imprisonment of not less than one year and not more than five years, or a fine of not less than 5 million won and not more than 20 million won


Involved in a Drunk Driving Case?

If you have become involved in a criminal case for fleeing after drunk driving, it is important to take prompt and systematic measures at the early stage.

Daeryun has a number of experienced attorneys with extensive experience and know-how in cases of fleeing after drunk driving, and it handles such cases promptly with tailored strategies suited to the type and circumstances of each case.

In addition, where administrative disadvantages are anticipated, we collaborate with attorneys experienced in administrative matters to comprehensively pursue the necessary measures, such as remedies for the driver's license and responses to administrative dispositions.

If you have failed to comply with a police checkpoint or refused a breath test in connection with fleeing after drunk driving, you must consider not only criminal punishment but also administrative dispositions such as suspension or revocation of your license, so an early consultation with an attorney is essential.

Because the early response to a case is paramount, please promptly 🔗make a consultation reservation and request our assistance.

음주운전도망

This content is based on actual cases handled by Daeryun Law LLC and has been partially adapted. All copyrights belong to Daeryun Law LLC.
Unauthorized reproduction, copying or distribution may result in legal action under applicable laws.

Refusal of a breathalyzer test: Want a faster, more detailed consultation?

Consult a
specialized attorney

Related Information

Explore legal information related to this case.

Explore more legal information

Daeryun's Key Strengths

Daeryun's key strengths background
Litigation strategy using
Daeryun's own AI & IT technology

Litigation strategy using Daeryun's own AI & IT technology

More than 240
key members

More than 240 key members

*experience_cnt*+ cases handled
per month

1,200+ cases handled per month

* 2025년 월평균 기준
Complies with Korean Bar Association Advertising Regulations Article 4 (1)

Explore
more strengths
Explore more strengths arrow

Book a legal
consultation with an attorney

All consultations are reviewed by a specialized attorney first,
so they are conducted by appointment only.

Phone consultation

1800-7905

Available 24 hours a day, 365 days a year

Phone consultation
Online consultation

Online consultation

We provide tailored
legal services for our clients.

Chat consultation

Chat consultation

KakaoTalk channel
Daeryun Law LLC Attorneys

Request a consultation

Related Members

View more
Attorney ChanWoo JEONG

ChanWoo JEONG

T. 070-5221-2387

Attorney specializing in drunk driving

Attorney DongGeun LEE

DongGeun LEE

T. 070-7510-2018

Attorney specializing in drunk driving

Attorney SeongJin YUN

SeongJin YUN

T. 070-7510-1044

Attorney specializing in drunk driving

Attorney MinHyuk KIM

MinHyuk KIM

T. 070-5221-0865

Police station disciplinary and petition deliberation committee

Attorney InJun LEE

InJun LEE

T. 070-5214-2362

Attorney specializing in drunk driving

Key Case Studies

View more

Related Practice Areas

View more
View our Case Handling System

Consult in other languages

Popular Columns

View more

Previous

How to Attach a Bank Account | Attachment of a Bank Account and Other Claims, Attachment of Claim and Collection Order Granted for 150 Million Won

Next

Corporate Bankruptcy Procedure | Completion of the Winding-Up of a Corporation with Approximately 300 Million Won in Unpaid Taxes and Wages Through the Assistance of an Attorney Specializing in Bankruptcy

View list
Quick Menu

Chat