Drunk Driving on Acquaintance's Motorcycle... Supreme Court Rules "Not Guilty of Insurance Non-Subscription Charge"

Supreme Court: "Holder is Responsible Party for Violation of Automobile Damage Compensation Guarantee Act"

[Asia Economy Reporter Baek Kyunghwan] The Supreme Court has ruled that a person driving a friend's motorcycle without a license and under the influence of alcohol, where the motorcycle was not covered by mandatory insurance, cannot be considered guilty of violating the Automobile Damage Compensation Guarantee Act.

The Supreme Court's First Division (Presiding Justice Kim Seonsu) confirmed the acquittal verdict of the lower court on the appeal of Mr. A, who was charged with violating the Automobile Damage Compensation Guarantee Act for illegally operating a friend's vehicle, on the 13th.

Mr. A, who did not have a driver's license, was prosecuted for driving a friend's four-wheeled motorcycle without a license plate and not covered by mandatory insurance, while intoxicated with a blood alcohol concentration of 0.308%, on a road in Uljin-gun, Gyeongbuk Province, in April last year (violation of the Road Traffic Act).

The prosecution also applied charges of violating the Automobile Damage Compensation Guarantee Act against Mr. A. Article 8 of the Automobile Damage Compensation Guarantee Act stipulates that "a motor vehicle not covered by mandatory insurance shall not be operated on the road."

The first trial, which found all charges guilty, sentenced Mr. A to eight months in prison, considering his past suspended prison sentence and fines for drunk driving and driving without a license.

The second trial also sentenced him to eight months in prison, like the first trial, but acquitted him of violating the Automobile Damage Compensation Guarantee Act. The reason was that the subject of the violation under Article 8 of the Act is the "vehicle owner," and since Mr. A borrowed the motorcycle from a friend and drove under the influence, he could not be the subject of the violation.

The Supreme Court agreed with the second trial's judgment, stating, "There is no error in the legal interpretation regarding the 'vehicle owner' under the Automobile Damage Compensation Guarantee Act."