Police Arrest Drunk Driver After Being Told to "Move the Car"... Court Acquits the Driver

The image is unrelated to the article content.

[Asia Economy Yeongnam Reporting Headquarters Reporter Lee Sang-hyun] The court acquitted a case of drunk driving where the police, knowing the driver was intoxicated, instructed him to move a parked vehicle and he drove under that instruction.

On the 23rd, the Criminal Division 3-1 of Changwon District Court (Presiding Judge Jang Jae-yong) announced that it overturned the first trial's verdict and acquitted A (45), who was fined 7 million won in the first trial for violating the Road Traffic Act.

A was fined 7 million won in the first trial for driving about 10 meters in a drunken state with a blood alcohol concentration of 0.059% at around 8:30 a.m. on November 2, 2019, in the parking lot of Myeonggok Police Substation in Uichang-gu, Changwon City, violating the Road Traffic Act.

The day before the incident, A parked his Carnival vehicle in the substation parking lot, drank at a nearby restaurant across the street, and was resting at a lodging facility when, around 7 a.m. on the day, he received a call from a night duty police officer belonging to the substation asking him to move the vehicle.

A replied, "I drank alcohol and cannot drive now, so I will move the car shortly," but when the police continued to demand that he move the vehicle, he drove about 10 meters from the substation parking lot to a nearby road.

At that time, a police officer came out of the substation and measured A's blood alcohol level, and A was caught driving under the influence at a level warranting license suspension.

A claimed that the police's drunk driving crackdown was a sting operation and expressed his grievance. He stated that he clearly informed the police of his intoxication but was forced to take the wheel because they kept demanding he drive.

The first trial court rejected A's claim, stating, "It is difficult to view the police's drunk driving crackdown as an illegal sting operation, and it is also difficult to consider the defendant's drunk driving as emergency escape."

However, the appellate court acknowledged that the police knew of A's intoxicated state but neglected to act.

Although it was difficult to consider it a sting operation, the court found that the police did not prevent the criminal act (drunk driving) despite being fully aware of the possibility, which violated proper procedures, and thus the evidence collected was inadmissible.

The appellate court judged, "The incident occurred on a Saturday morning, and there was no special reason for the defendant to drive. If the police had not persistently called, it is likely he had no intention to move the vehicle until his hangover subsided."

It also ruled, "Allowing the criminal act to occur by neglecting to prevent it despite having the opportunity beforehand, and then initiating an investigation, violates Article 12 of the Constitution, which stipulates the principle of due process, as well as Article 199 of the Criminal Procedure Act and the purpose of the Police Duties Execution Act, which regulate the principles of appropriateness and proportionality in investigations, making it difficult to recognize the legality."

The first trial verdict was overturned, and A was acquitted.