[Seocho-dong Legal Story] 26 km/h 'Minsik Law' Not Guilty, Prosecution Appeals Saying "Should Have Stopped"

The photo is unrelated to the article content. [Image source=Yonhap News]

[Asia Economy Reporter Kim Daehyun] "This is an issue that all drivers, including those present here, worry about. When crossing a crosswalk, if visibility is blocked by other cars and the moment of recognizing a pedestrian is very late, what should be done? What kind of duty of care should be imposed on drivers?" (Judge)

On June 12 last year, around 2:30 PM, Mr. A was driving an SUV on a one-way two-lane road in a children's protection zone in Seocho-gu, Seoul, when he hit B (then 10 years old) who was crossing the crosswalk. B suffered injuries including a clavicle fracture, requiring 8 weeks of treatment. The accident occurred at a location where the traffic signal was out of order, so there was no signal. B ran out from between a line of vehicles stopped in the opposite lane. At the time of the accident, Mr. A’s driving speed was approximately 26.1 km/h.

B suffered injuries including a clavicle fracture, requiring 8 weeks of treatment. The prosecution applied charges against Mr. A under the Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Specific Crimes (Injury in a Children’s Protection Zone), commonly known as the 'Min-sik Law,' stating that as a driver passing a crosswalk, he had a duty of care, and sent him to criminal trial.

On April 1, the first trial court acquitted him. It stated, "Even if the defendant fulfilled his duty to watch, it would have been impossible to recognize that the victim had entered the crosswalk due to the stopped cars," and "It would have been impossible to avoid the accident." The court considered a simulation of the accident scene, which showed that the first moment Mr. A could see the child was only 0.76 seconds before the collision, shorter than the average time needed to start braking.

The prosecution appealed the first trial verdict. The Seoul High Court Criminal Division 5 (Presiding Judges Seo Seungryeol, Park Jaeyoung, Kim Sangcheol), which handled the appeal, said, "The issue is what duty should be imposed on the defendant. Please specify at what speed the defendant should have driven slowly at that time," and asked, "The claim is that if the defendant had driven slowly and fulfilled the duty to watch left and right, the accident could have been prevented, but what level of caution was required given the traffic conditions at the time?"

Subsequently, the prosecution changed the charges, stating, "The defendant had a duty to stop temporarily when passing the crosswalk in a situation where visibility was difficult to secure, and he failed to fulfill this duty."

Mr. A’s side said, "It is very regrettable and unfortunate that a child was injured while crossing the crosswalk and had to receive treatment. The defendant’s fault is not light," but also appealed, "(Considering the purpose of the indictment change) the prosecution’s claim is excessively harsh."

In his closing argument, the defense attorney said, "To punish in this case, the defendant must have had the 'possibility of avoidance,' but it is difficult to see that there was sufficient time to avoid the accident," and added, "The duty to stop temporarily under the Road Traffic Act was stipulated after this accident, and it is also an issue of 'when' the defendant should have stopped to avoid the accident."

Mr. A stated in his final statement, "I will not justify this accident as an act of God. I realized that infinite effort must be made for pedestrian safety. I will drive more safely in the future."

According to the court on the 30th, the appellate court completed the trial procedure the day before and set the sentencing date for January 12 next year. Meanwhile, B is living daily life without aftereffects following treatment and has conveyed to the court his intention not to seek punishment against Mr. A after reaching a settlement.