'Multiple Collision Hit-and-Run' Charge Acquitted: "Did Not Realize It Was a Non-Contact Accident"

A taxi driver in his 70s who caused a non-contact multiple collision accident and fled the scene was acquitted of hit-and-run charges in the second trial, following the first trial.

According to the legal community on the 9th, the Seoul Central District Court Criminal Appeal Division 5-2 (Presiding Judge Choi Tae-young) found taxi driver A (79, male) guilty of violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (causing injury) but not guilty of violating the Road Traffic Act (failure to take measures after an accident), and sentenced him to a fine of 2 million won, the same as in the first trial.

The photo is unrelated to the article content. Photo by Jinhyung Kang aymsdream@

Earlier, on December 7, 2021, at noon, A noticed a vehicle stopped ahead on a five-lane road in Seocho-gu, Seoul, and abruptly changed lanes. At that time, a white solid line prohibiting lane changes was drawn for more than 20 meters on the road.

As A changed lanes, three vehicles following behind made sudden stops in sequence. Although the vehicles did not collide with each other, motorcycle rider B (53) collided with the last stopped vehicle and sustained injuries requiring two weeks of medical treatment. At the time, B honked the horn saying "Stop," but A did not immediately get out of the car and left the scene.

A was prosecuted on charges of causing injury due to negligent driving. The prosecutor argued, "A, who caused the traffic accident, should have immediately gotten out, provided aid to the injured, and given his personal information," and also indicted him for violating the Road Traffic Act (failure to take measures after an accident).

The first trial found A guilty only of violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (causing injury). The court stated, "The crime of violating the Road Traffic Act for failure to take measures after an accident requires awareness of the accident," and added, "A’s vehicle did not make any contact with B, and the accident location was behind A’s vehicle, making it difficult to recognize. This point is also acknowledged by the investigative authorities themselves."

Furthermore, the court said, "There is no circumstance to believe that A was aware of the accident until he left the scene," and "It is difficult to conclude that this crime is established solely because B chased after on a motorcycle."

The prosecutor argued in the appeal trial, "A multiple collision accident occurred behind, and it is likely that the motorcycle rider victim was injured because of this, which A should have at least implicitly recognized," and "However, A fled the scene simply because it was a non-contact accident. The violation of the Road Traffic Act should also be judged guilty."

However, the second trial also upheld the first trial’s judgment. The appellate court stated, "A’s vehicle was covered by the taxi mutual aid association’s comprehensive insurance, and he even continued driving with a passenger immediately after the accident," and "There appears to be no special circumstance suggesting that A recognized the accident at the time and fled."

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