Neglecting Victim Due to Drinking Appointment? ... Vehicle Driver Sentenced for Hit-and-Run

[Asia Economy (Daejeon) Reporter Jeong Il-woong] A perpetrator who was negligent in handling a traffic accident, citing a drinking appointment with an acquaintance as the reason, was sentenced to imprisonment by the court. The perpetrator argued that he took the victim near the hospital and left his contact information, but the court did not accept this defense.

According to the Criminal Division 12 of the Daejeon District Court (Chief Judge Lee Chang-kyung) on the 3rd, Mr. A (51) hit a high school student crossing a crosswalk in Yuseong-gu, Daejeon last year. At the time, Mr. A caused the accident while running a red light, and the victim was thrown into the air and fell due to the impact with the vehicle.

However, after the accident, Mr. A put the victim in his car and took him only near the hospital, left his contact information (mobile phone number), and then left the scene. He also took measures to allow the victim to photograph his vehicle's license plate.

On the other hand, the police who handled the case judged that Mr. A’s actions were insufficient first aid measures as the driver of the offending vehicle and sent Mr. A to the prosecution on charges of violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Specific Crimes (hit-and-run causing injury, commonly known as "baengsoni").

In the court battle over these facts, Mr. A denied the hit-and-run charge, citing that he left his contact information so the victim could contact him after treatment and even allowed the victim to photograph the license plate.

However, the court sentenced Mr. A to one year in prison with a two-year probation. The court did not accept Mr. A’s claim that sufficient first aid was provided after the accident.

The court noted that Mr. A only took the victim near the hospital without registering the treatment or contacting the insurance company for the vehicle insurance, and especially considered Mr. A’s act of meeting an acquaintance to drink alcohol after the accident as “an incomprehensible behavior.”

The court stated, "We want to ask whether the drinking appointment with an acquaintance was a more urgent matter than providing aid to the victim," adding, "Moreover, there is circumstantial evidence that the defendant (Mr. A) smelled of alcohol at the time. Considering this, it is highly suspicious that the defendant caused the accident while intoxicated and devised a strategy to evade responsibility."

Meanwhile, Mr. A appealed the original verdict, claiming factual errors and excessive sentencing, but the court dismissed his appeal, stating that there was no problem with the original judgment.

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