Suwon Attorney | Suwon Criminal Attorney Assists a Client Who Caused Property Damage After Drunk Driving, Obtaining a Suspended Sentence

On the day of the incident, the client drank alcohol while having lunch with an acquaintance.

After finishing the meal, the client tried to call a designated driver, but the dispatch was not running smoothly.

Although the client was intoxicated at the time, he decided to drive himself, citing the fact that the distance home was close, about 500m.

However, this was a momentary error in judgment, and it ultimately led to an accident.

Not long after he began driving, the client failed to notice a truck parked at the edge of the road and struck it head-on.

Fortunately, there were no casualties, but property damage occurred, including damage to the truck's bumper and the front of the vehicle.

Immediately after the accident, a resident who witnessed it from nearby reported it to the police, and the police were dispatched and conducted a sobriety test on the client.

The test showed a blood alcohol concentration of 0.204%, which far exceeded the license revocation threshold (0.08%), making punishment unavoidable.

In particular, the client had a prior record of drunk driving, so the likelihood of aggravated punishment was high.

The client was indicted on charges of violating the Road Traffic Act (drunk driving) and violating the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents.

In particular, the client had a record of receiving fines for drunk driving 7 years ago and 10 years ago.

Because the client caused a collision with a parked truck after drunk driving, the situation was more serious.

Because a court is likely to impose a heavier punishment in the case of a repeat drunk driving offense, the situation called for a careful response from the Suwon criminal attorney.

The client had not planned to drive after drinking on the day of the incident; rather, when the dispatch of a designated driver was delayed, he took the wheel on a momentary judgment.

Emphasizing that this was not a premeditated offense but a momentary mistake, the attorney argued that the client had not had any criminal intent from the outset.

After the incident, the client thoroughly reflected on his drunk driving habits and was making practical efforts to prevent reoffending.

Immediately after the incident occurred, he sold his vehicle so that he would not drive at all, and he was using public transportation and carpooling to commute and using public transportation for long-distance travel as well.

In addition, he emphasized that he was making efforts to prevent reoffending, such as declaring abstinence from alcohol to his family and acquaintances and signing a pledge to eradicate drunk driving.

The client's family and colleagues submitted letters of appeal to the court asking for leniency on behalf of the client.

These letters of appeal stated that the client had ordinarily worked diligently at his job and supported his family, and that he was deeply remorseful as a result of this incident.

In addition, the client's family and colleagues promised to actively manage and support him so that he would never drink and drive again.