Vehicle Caught Speeding at 168 km/h by Undercover Patrol Car... Reason for Acquittal

Court: "Curved Road May Cause Equipment Errors"

A driver caught speeding at 168 km/h by an unmarked patrol car was acquitted in a formal trial.

According to the legal community on the 18th, Judge Na Sang-ah of the Gwangju District Court Criminal Division 10 acquitted Mr. A (56), who was charged with violating the Road Traffic Act. Mr. A was caught speeding at 168 km/h on the morning of November 4, 2022, at 10:05 AM on the northbound lane of National Road No. 1 in Naju, Jeollanam-do (where the speed limit is 80 km/h).

The police measured the speed using enforcement equipment installed in the patrol car (undercover enforcement), but only attached a photo of Mr. A’s SUV as evidence of the speed limit violation.

Mr. A could not accept the enforcement. He claimed he never drove at 168 km/h on the curved road to the left. On the day of the enforcement, he even visited a tire specialist to inquire about replacing worn tires that were so worn the internal steel cords were visible.

Mr. A explained to the police that speeding was impossible given the road conditions and the state of his private vehicle, and that errors could have occurred in the patrol car’s enforcement equipment due to the measurement location, time, and interference from surrounding objects. However, the case was soon forwarded to the prosecution.

On December 15 of the same year, Mr. A received a prior notice of administrative suspension of his driver’s license for 80 days (due to speeding exceeding 80 km/h) from the Naju Police Station and a summary order for a fine of 300,000 won. He insisted that he did not speed and raised the possibility of an error in the enforcement equipment, requesting a formal trial.

Specifically, Mr. A argued, “The enforcement location is a busy route from Naju to Gwangju. Especially, a large dump truck was operating in the second lane at the enforcement point. I did not speed by crossing the truck.”

He added, “I passed a fixed speed enforcement camera normally about 600 meters before the undercover patrol enforcement point. There is a possibility that the enforcement equipment installed in the patrol car used by the police had an error. Please clear my name.”

Mr. A submitted to the court documents confirming the tire wear and replacement, as well as part of the information disclosed by the police upon his request (including undercover enforcement status).

The court stated, “The enforcement point is on a curved road, and it is hard to believe that someone would speed at 168 km/h during a time of heavy traffic,” and acquitted Mr. A.

It continued, “From January to November last year, Mr. A was the only case caught driving over 140 km/h in the area around the enforcement point using the traffic enforcement equipment installed in the undercover patrol car. There were only three cases exceeding 130 km/h. Considering these points, it cannot be ruled out that there was an error in the speed measurement process by the traffic enforcement equipment installed in the undercover patrol car, which was recently implemented.”

Furthermore, the court ruled, “The unmanned enforcement data management inquiry screen and the photo of the enforcement vehicle alone cannot prove Mr. A’s guilt.”

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