Traffic Accident Law Firm Assistance Case | Hit-and-Run Injury Traffic Accident; Non-Referral

The client, as usual, passed through an alley near his home and turned left to enter a main road on his way to work.

However, a few hours later, he was notified by the police of a report that he had “struck a pedestrian with the vehicle's side mirror.”

The client had no awareness of any accident at all, and because his dashcam had been out of order for several months, it was difficult to ascertain the situation.

The greater problem was that the victim, in an agitated state, strongly wished for punishment, claiming ‘intentional flight’ and that ‘the assertion of having no awareness of the accident was a lie.’

On top of this, since the client was working at a public enterprise, it was a very sensitive situation in which, if the case led to criminal punishment, disadvantages to his status such as disciplinary action were anticipated.

For this reason, he came to a traffic accident law firm and requested assistance in defending against the charge.

The three key points of this case identified by the traffic accident attorney were as follows.

For a charge of injury under the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents to apply, the suspect must have breached an occupational duty of care, and for hit-and-run causing injury to be established, perception of the accident and breach of the duty to provide aid must be proven.

However, the client did not perceive the fact of the impact, and the vehicle’s side mirror also remained in normal condition as he continued driving.

In response, the traffic accident law firm set about clearly structuring the facts of the accident situation and establishing a strategy to block the hit-and-run causing injury charge.

For the crime of hit-and-run causing injury to be established, it must be clearly proven that the suspect left the scene without taking measures to provide aid, despite being aware that an accident had occurred.

However, in this case, the side-mirror contact at the time of the accident was minor and there was no abnormality in appearance.

Moreover, it was possible to prove, by securing the rear dashcam footage of the vehicle ahead, the circumstance that the victim also did not take any action to clearly inform the client of the fact of the accident.

On the basis of these circumstances, the traffic accident attorney fundamentally blocked the establishment of the hit-and-run causing injury charge.

The injury claimed by the victim was a minor sprain requiring about 2 weeks of treatment, and the client's vehicle was covered by comprehensive insurance.

Accordingly, the traffic accident attorney argued that, under Article 4 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents, the case fell under no right to prosecute and was thus excluded from being subject to criminal punishment.

Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents Article 4 (Special Cases where Insurance, etc. is Subscribed)

Even with an accident in an alley or a minor contact, if the conflict with the victim grows, the case may expand into charges such as hit-and-run causing injury or causing injury.

At Daeryun LLC, we actively protect clients through the following system.

If you are facing punishment due to the occurrence of a traffic accident, please entrust your case at any time through a 🔗legal consultation reservation.