The Anti-Corruption and Civil Rights Commission: "Driving forward or backward 5~6m is still drunk driving... License cancellation is justified"

[Asia Economy Sejong=Reporter Son Seon-hee] It has been ruled in an administrative adjudication decision that driving under the influence applies regardless of how short the driving distance is while intoxicated, and that the resulting driver's license cancellation is justified.

According to the Anti-Corruption and Civil Rights Commission on the 15th, the Central Administrative Adjudication Committee (Central Adjudication Committee) rejected Mr. A's request for relief, who asked to cancel the penalty claiming, "I only moved about 5 to 6 meters for the convenience of the designated driver after calling for a substitute driver following drinking, and had no intention to continue driving."

Mr. A drank at an acquaintance's house and called for a substitute driver late at night. Because the road was narrow and there were obstacles, he thought it would be inconvenient for the substitute driver to drive the vehicle, so he started the engine himself and moved the car forward and backward about 5 to 6 meters, but was caught by the police who received a report.

As a result of the breathalyzer test, Mr. A's blood alcohol concentration exceeded the driver's license cancellation standard (0.080%), and he was subject to license cancellation. According to the Road Traffic Act, "driving" means using a vehicle on the road according to its original purpose, and if the engine is started and the vehicle is moved, it is considered driving.

However, Mr. A filed an administrative adjudication with the Central Adjudication Committee, arguing, "I only wanted to briefly ease the substitute driver's effort and had no intention to continue driving, and since I need a driver's license for work, the penalty is excessively harsh."

The Central Adjudication Committee decided that although the driving distance was short, Mr. A's drunk driving was recognized, and the police's driver's license cancellation was neither illegal nor unjust. The committee explained, "Administrative adjudication is an effective means of protecting rights that judges not only the illegality but also the unfairness of the penalty, but considering the risk of traffic accidents, it makes stricter decisions when judging mitigation in drunk driving cases."

Min Sung-shim, Director of the Administrative Adjudication Bureau at the Anti-Corruption and Civil Rights Commission, emphasized, "To eradicate drunk driving, it is necessary to abandon the complacent thought of 'this much should be okay' and to have a law-abiding awareness and attitude as a more mature citizen."