A Man in His 50s Arrested for Drunk Driving 20 Minutes Later... Acquitted Again in Appeal Trial

[Asia Economy Reporter Seoyoung Kwon] A ruling has been made that a person who was arrested after drinking and then taking a taxi cannot be considered a flagrante delicto (caught in the act).

Today (the 4th), the Chuncheon District Court Criminal Division 1 (Presiding Judge Cheongmi Kim) announced that it upheld the original not guilty verdict for A (56), who was charged with refusal to undergo a breathalyzer test under the Road Traffic Act.

Previously, on the night of September 20, 2019, A was arrested in flagrante delicto by police who responded to reports from taxi drivers at a taxi stand that he was "driving under the influence and causing a disturbance." Afterwards, the police moved to the precinct and requested A to take a breathalyzer test three times. However, A refused to comply and was brought to trial on charges of refusal to undergo a breathalyzer test.

However, the Chuncheon District Court Yeongwol Branch, which handled the first trial, ruled that the police's arrest of A as a flagrante delicto was illegal because the conditions for such an arrest were not met, and that the breathalyzer test requests made under those circumstances were also illegal. This judgment was based on the fact that 20 minutes had passed between the time A committed the drunk driving and the time of arrest, and that the actual place of arrest was also distant from the crime scene, making it difficult to consider it a flagrante delicto.

Furthermore, the court found it unreasonable that the police arrested A as a flagrante delicto relying solely on the complainants' statements without verifying the location of A's vehicle, and ruled not guilty, stating that it is difficult to conclude that there was a risk of flight or evidence tampering simply because A did not disclose his personal information. However, A was found guilty of causing a disturbance by arguing with drivers over parking issues on the day of the incident (violation of the Minor Offenses Act) and was fined 100,000 KRW.

In response, the prosecution appealed, claiming that A met the criteria for flagrante delicto or quasi-flagrante delicto. However, the appellate court also dismissed the appeal, stating that "the mere fact that he appeared somewhat intoxicated does not clearly prove that he was the offender who committed drunk driving, and it is difficult to assess that the conditions for warrantless arrest as a quasi-flagrante delicto were met."

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