"Please Amend the Minsik Law"... Also Criticism of 'Excessive Concerns'

청, Min-sik Law Amendment Petition: "Not Always Criminal Punishment, Excessive Concern"
Drivers Express Limits of Defensive Driving in School Zones
Political Circles Also Call for Law Revision

[Image source=Yonhap News]

[Asia Economy Reporter Han Seung-gon] Voices calling for the revision of the Minsik Law are growing louder. In the political sphere, opinions have emerged to revise and supplement this law again in the 21st National Assembly, and a petition on the Blue House's National Petition Board requesting the law's amendment has garnered hundreds of thousands of supporters. The parents of the late Kim Minsik also stated that if there are issues with the law, it should be possible to amend it.

As a result, there is keen interest in whether the Minsik Law (Amendment to the Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Specific Crimes) might be revised once again. However, the Blue House responded to the petition by indicating that concerns about the law are somewhat exaggerated, effectively expressing a negative stance.

Since its initial enactment, the Minsik Law has been embroiled in controversy over excessive punishment. Critics point out that the level of punishment for fatal traffic accidents is similar to that for murder, comparable to or even harsher than sentences for serious crimes such as drunk driving causing death or robbery. Some legal experts have also raised concerns based on the 'principle of prohibition of excessiveness.'

Above all, while drivers sympathize with the intent behind the law's amendment, they criticize it for not understanding the school zone situation and merely strengthening punishments.

School zones have many elementary school students, and it is argued that children can suddenly dart out in front of vehicles at any time and place, limiting the effectiveness of defensive driving.

A driver in his 30s, Mr. A, said, "I agree with the reason why the Minsik Law was introduced," but added, "No matter how carefully you drive, you cannot avoid children who suddenly run out recklessly from behind or the side." He continued, "In such situations, being sentenced to imprisonment under the Minsik Law would feel truly unfair," expressing his frustration.

Another driver in his 30s, Mr. B, also pointed out, "Who would want to hit a child? Losing a job or going to prison over a single momentary mistake seems unreasonable."

According to the Minsik Law, if a child dies due to driver negligence in a school zone, the driver faces life imprisonment or imprisonment for three years or more. If the victim is injured, the penalty is imprisonment for one to fifteen years or a fine ranging from 5 million to 30 million won.

Given this situation, a petition requesting the revision of the Minsik Law was also posted on the Blue House petition board. On the 23rd of last month, a post titled "Petition to Amend the Minsik Law" was uploaded, receiving over 350,000 endorsements.

The petitioner argued, "In fatal accidents, the punishment is the same as that for drunk driving causing death, which violates the constitutional principle of proportionality between responsibility and punishment," and added, "It is unfair to place all responsibility on the driver even when the driver could not have avoided the accident."

In response, on the 20th, the Blue House replied that the petition might reflect excessive concerns.

Kim Gye-jo, Director-General of the Disaster and Safety Management Headquarters at the Ministry of the Interior and Safety (Vice Minister), responded in the afternoon, stating, "The current law stipulates the violation of children's safety obligations, and existing precedents recognize that if the driver could not have foreseen the accident or avoided it, there is no negligence. Considering the current law and precedents, the claim that criminal punishment is inevitable may be somewhat exaggerated."

He also said, "Since the amendment to the Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Specific Crimes came into effect on March 25, controversy over excessive punishment has continued," and added, "There is also anxiety that even if the speed limit is observed in a children's protection zone, any accident would automatically lead to criminal punishment."

He then requested, "Please understand the legislative intent and social consensus aimed at protecting children's safety," and assured, "The government will also ensure reasonable application of the law reflecting the legislative intent. Through scientific analysis by the National Forensic Service and the Road Traffic Authority, each case will be judged specifically to prevent unjust drivers from being penalized, and we will make every effort to this end."

[Image source=Yonhap News]

However, the political sphere is showing movements toward revising the Minsik Law, drawing attention to whether actual amendments will be made.

Kang Hyo-sang, a member of the Future United Party, proposed revising the law to restore or ease the level of punishment to the pre-amendment standards.

On the 19th, Kang held a press conference at the National Assembly Communication Office, making this proposal and urging, "Let's handle the amendment to the Minsik Law as the first people's livelihood bill of the 21st National Assembly."

Kang said, "The level of punishment for negligence causing death in traffic accidents should not be similar to or higher than that for serious crimes such as drunk driving causing death or robbery, which are effectively murder," and added, "While the duty of care in school zones cannot be overemphasized, distinguishing between intentional and negligent crimes is a principle of modern criminal law."

He emphasized, "This also violates the constitutional principle of prohibition of excessiveness," and noted, "Several legal experts, including Professor Ha Tae-hoon of Korea University Law School and traffic law specialist lawyer Han Moon-cheol, have presented similar analyses."

Additionally, the late Kim Minsik's parents said in an interview with a media outlet on the 28th of last month, "The Minsik Law is not a law for revenge," and stated, "If there are parts of the Minsik Law that need revision, they should be revised, and if there are parts that need supplementation, they should be supplemented to become a perfect law. We do not view this negatively."

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.