Active Judge Criticizes Constitutional Ruling on 'Yoon Chang-ho Law'

[Image source=Yonhap News]

[Asia Economy Reporter Kang Nahum] A sitting judge has expressed criticism after the Constitutional Court ruled the so-called ‘Yoon Chang-ho Act’ clause, which imposes aggravated punishment for drunk driving offenses committed two or more times, unconstitutional.

According to the legal community on the 25th, Chief Judge A, who is serving at a district court, wrote on the court’s internal network ‘CourtNet’ that "As a presiding judge who applied the law (Yoon Chang-ho Act) as it is in trials, I question who the Constitutional Court’s decision truly serves."

He continued, "The Constitutional Court’s reasoning seems to be based on the idea that it is unfair to carry the stigma of being a repeat offender for life," and expressed concern, "Doesn’t this send a wrong signal that if you haven’t been caught for drunk driving for about 10 years and haven’t caused an accident, it’s okay to drive drunk again?"

He also stated, "By ignoring the social consensus aimed at preventing innocent people from becoming victims of drunk driving and simply ruling it unconstitutional, it has caused great confusion in legal stability, which makes me question whether this truly protects constitutional values."

Furthermore, he argued, "To ensure that the efforts of those who tirelessly work to instill the perception that drunk driving is equivalent to murder are not in vain, the courts must continue to demonstrate a strong will for strict punishment despite the Constitutional Court’s unconstitutional ruling."

Earlier, the Constitutional Court ruled unconstitutional by a 7 to 2 decision on the part of Article 148-2 of the Road Traffic Act concerning ‘persons who have violated the drunk driving prohibition regulation two or more times.’

This provision punishes those who violate the drunk driving prohibition regulation two or more times with imprisonment from 2 to 5 years or a fine ranging from 10 million to 20 million won. The Constitutional Court ruled this provision unconstitutional on the grounds that it violates the constitutional principle that responsibility and punishment must be proportional.

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