'Yoon Chang-ho Act' on 'Increased Penalties for Repeat Drunk Driving Offenses'... Constitutional Court Rules "Excessive Regulation, Unconstitutional"

[Image source=Yonhap News]

[Asia Economy Reporter Baek Kyunghwan] The Constitutional Court has ruled that the provision in the Road Traffic Act imposing aggravated punishment for violating the drunk driving prohibition rule more than twice is unconstitutional.

On the 25th, the Constitutional Court delivered a ruling of unconstitutionality by a 7 to 2 vote in a constitutional complaint case filed by Mr. A and others, claiming that "Article 148-2, Paragraph 1 of the Road Traffic Act is unconstitutional."

Article 148-2, Paragraph 1 of the Road Traffic Act stipulates that a person who violates the drunk driving prohibition rule more than twice shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than 2 years and not more than 5 years or a fine of not less than 10 million won and not more than 20 million won. This provision, known as the ‘Yoon Chang-ho Act,’ was amended following the death of Yoon Chang-ho, who was hit by a vehicle driven by a drunk driver in Haeundae-gu, Busan, in September 2018.

On this day, the Constitutional Court pointed out, "There is no time limit between the past drunk driving violation acts that constitute the aggravating condition and the repeated drunk driving violation acts subject to punishment, nor does it require that the past violation acts be prior convictions with sentencing or confirmed guilty verdicts."

For example, if the past violation occurred more than 10 years ago and drunk driving was committed afterward, it is difficult to evaluate this as a repetitive act. The Constitutional Court added, "It is rare to find cases where unlimited subsequent offenses are aggravated without any time limit due to past offenses, and this does not align with the purpose of recognizing statutes of limitations or the extinction of punishment."

There was also an opinion that this provision does not violate the principles of proportionality between responsibility and punishment or the principle of equality, and is not unconstitutional. Justices Lee Seon-ae and Moon Hyeong-bae dissented, stating, "This provision was legislated based on criminal policy considerations to strictly punish and prevent repeated drunk driving crimes following the so-called 'Yoon Chang-ho case,' and since repeated drunk driving is highly blameworthy, the aggravated punishment of repeat drunk drivers under the challenged provision has a rational basis."

A Constitutional Court official explained, "This case is the first time the Constitutional Court has judged the constitutionality of the Road Traffic Act provision that stipulates aggravated punishment for repeated violations of the drunk driving prohibition rule."

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