Anyang Attorney Consultation Case | Anyang Attorney Consultation: Repeat Drunk Driving Client, Fine Defended

We listened to the client's account.

On the day of the incident, the client had a company dinner with coworkers. During the gathering, one coworker got up early to head home.

As it happened, the client's vehicle was parked in a way that blocked that coworker's vehicle, so the client had to move their own vehicle elsewhere.

Although the client had drunk a fair amount, they took the wheel thinking that driving briefly just to move the car would be fine, and they ended up colliding with another vehicle parked nearby.

The client had received a fine for drunk driving about 8 years earlier, and because this incident made them a repeat drunk driving offender, they sought to defend against an actual custodial sentence.

Under the Road Traffic Act, a blood alcohol concentration of 0.03% or higher is regarded as drunk driving.

In addition, if a person has a record of being punished with a fine or heavier for drunk driving within the past 10 years, the offense is classified as a repeat drunk driving offense or higher.

In such cases, a person with a prior drunk driving record naturally receives a more severe penalty than a first-time offender.

▣ Road Traffic Act Article 44 (Prohibition of Driving While Intoxicated)

The standard for the intoxicated state in which driving is prohibited is a driver's blood alcohol concentration of 0.03 percent or higher.

▣ Road Traffic Act Article 148-2 (Penal Provisions) ▶ Aggravated Punishment in the Case of Repeat Drunk Driving

☞ [Preliminary Review] : Go to Preliminary Review of Drunk Driving Penalty Levels

The client argued that after receiving a fine for drunk driving in the past, they had not driven drunk even once and had always used a designated driver service or a taxi.

To prove this, the client submitted the portions of their card usage records relating to designated driver services and taxi use.

The client argued that they planned to sell their vehicle after this incident and that there would be no room for them to drive a vehicle again going forward.

The client argued that, realizing they had left an indelible wound on their family and caused deep trauma through two drunk driving incidents, they did not even contemplate driving again.

The client argued that, aside from very minor property damage, their drunk driving caused no casualties or any other accident.

They also argued that the distance driven while intoxicated was only about 5m, so short that it could hardly be regarded as driving at all.