Traffic Accident Referral Assistance Case | A Client in a Failure to Take Measures After a Traffic Accident Case, Non-Prosecution

The client made a living working in delivery on a motorcycle.

On the day of the incident, while making a delivery on a rainy evening, the client got into a dispute with another motorcycle rider. After the argument, while following the other party, the other party slipped and fell on the wet road.

However, because there had been no physical contact, the client assumed the other party had fallen on his own and left the scene without taking any particular measures.

The other party then filed a complaint against the client on a charge of ‘failure to take measures after an accident (hit-and-run),’ and the case was referred to the prosecutors’ office.

Fearing license revocation, the client came to a traffic accident attorney to request assistance.

The traffic accident attorney closely reviewed the investigation records and video materials, and focused on the following issues in the case.

Issues in the Case

Having weighed the above issues, the traffic accident attorney determined that it would be difficult for the client's allegation of "failure to take measures after an accident" to be established.

In particular, by comprehensively reviewing whether the accident had been recognized and the circumstances at the scene, the attorney focused on the point that no duty to take measures had arisen for the client.

Accordingly, the traffic accident attorney established a strategy of contesting the allegation itself.

The traffic accident attorney closely analyzed the surrounding CCTV footage and dashcam data from the time of the accident.

Through this, the attorney secured evidence capable of proving that there had been no physical contact between the client's motorcycle and the victim's motorcycle.

In addition, the attorney pointed out the contradictions between the collision situation claimed by the victim and the movements in the actual footage, thereby rebutting the credibility of the victim's statement.

In the written opinion submitted to the investigative agency, the reasonable grounds on which the client did not recognize the incident as an accident were emphasized.

Considering the rainy evening, the surrounding noise, and the road conditions, it was strongly argued that the client had simply recognized the dispute as having ended and left the scene, and had not fled after recognizing an accident.

The traffic accident attorney conducted a detailed analysis of the legal principles regarding the requirements for applying Article 54, Paragraph 1 of the Road Traffic Act, including the 'awareness of the accident', the 'existence of a traffic hazard', and the 'necessity of measures'.

The attorney then logically organized the point that this case involved no contact at all and that it was difficult to find that a traffic hazard had been created, and submitted this to the investigative authorities.

In the event that the investigative authorities were to find the charges established, we also actively presented the client's mitigating circumstances so that the level of punishment could be reduced.

The above is a case in which a client, facing the risk of punishment after a traffic accident case was referred to the prosecutors' office, obtained a non-prosecution disposition by responding strategically from the prosecutorial investigation stage.

Daeryun LLC has many specialist attorneys with extensive experience in traffic accident cases.

The firm provides one-stop legal services covering not only the criminal procedures related to traffic accidents but also insurance claim matters and the civil litigation stage.

If you are in a situation requiring legal assistance due to a traffic accident, please request a consultation on your case at any time through a 🔗legal consultation booking.