Driver Who Followed Speed Limit: Why Guilty in 2nd Trial After 'Minsik Law' Not Guilty in 1st Trial?

[Asia Economy Reporter Kim Daehyun] A driver who was prosecuted for injuring a child who suddenly ran out from between vehicles while slowing down in a school zone with a broken pedestrian traffic light was sentenced to a fine in the second trial. The first trial's not guilty verdict was overturned. ▶Refer to the November 30, 2022 article [Seocho-dong Legal Story] 26 km/h 'Minsik's Law' Not Guilty, Prosecution Appeals Saying "Should Have Stopped"

According to the court on the 21st, the Seoul High Court Criminal Division 5 (Presiding Judges Seo Seungryeol, Park Jaeyoung, Kim Sangcheol) recently sentenced Mr. A, who was indicted for violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Specific Crimes (Injury in a School Zone), known as the 'Minsik's Law,' to a fine of 3 million KRW.

A traffic safety sign for a school zone is installed in front of an elementary school in Seongdong-gu, Seoul. The photo is unrelated to the article content. [Image source=Yonhap News]

The appellate court stated, "All drivers have the duty to check for pedestrians and ensure pedestrian passage is not obstructed by stopping temporarily in front of a crosswalk without pedestrian signals, especially when visibility is limited," and added, "Nevertheless, the defendant proceeded without stopping temporarily in front of the crosswalk."

Furthermore, the court emphasized, "There is no circumstance indicating that the accident could not have been avoided even if a temporary stop had been made," and "The first trial judged that the duty to stop under the Road Traffic Act only applies when the driver recognizes the presence of pedestrians or children, but this duty applies not only when the driver realistically recognizes them but also when, according to social norms, the presence of pedestrians or children can be reasonably anticipated. For example, in this case, where visibility at the crosswalk entrance was blocked and pedestrians could not be confirmed, the duty naturally applies."

On June 12, 2021, at noon, Mr. A was driving an SUV on a one-way two-lane road in a school zone in Seocho-gu, Seoul, when he hit B (then 10 years old) who was crossing the crosswalk. B sustained injuries requiring eight weeks of medical treatment. The accident occurred at a location where the traffic signal was out of order. B ran out from between vehicles lined up in the opposite lane. At the time of the accident, Mr. A's vehicle was traveling at approximately 26.1 km/h.

B suffered a clavicle fracture and other injuries requiring eight weeks of treatment. Mr. A was prosecuted on the grounds that if the opposite lane was congested and visibility was limited, he should have driven slowly and watched left and right carefully. The first trial acquitted him, stating, "Even if the defendant fulfilled the duty of attention, it would have been impossible to recognize that the victim entered the crosswalk due to the stopped vehicles," and "Avoiding the accident would have been impossible."

The prosecution appealed the first trial's verdict. In the appellate trial, the prosecution changed the charges, stating, "At that time, vehicles were moving slowly on both sides of the road, making it impossible to confirm whether there were pedestrians at the crosswalk entrance," and "The vehicle should have stopped temporarily to check that no pedestrians were crossing or reduced speed further to stop immediately upon discovery."

In the final argument of the appeal, the defense attorney said, "For punishment in this case, the defendant must have had the possibility to avoid the accident, but it is difficult to see that there was sufficient time to avoid it," and "The duty to stop under the Road Traffic Act was stipulated after this accident, and it is also problematic to determine 'when' the vehicle should have stopped to avoid the accident."

Mr. A has filed an appeal against the second trial's judgment, and the case will be subject to the Supreme Court's decision. Meanwhile, B is living daily life without aftereffects following treatment and has conveyed to the court a desire not to pursue punishment against Mr. A after reaching a settlement.

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