"Thought It Was a Wild Animal"... Driver Who Hit Black Pet Dog at Night Found Not Guilty of Hit-and-Run

Court Rules "Black Dog Jumped Out from Blind Spot"
Driver's Claim Deemed Reasonable, Acquitted

A ruling has been made that it is difficult to hold a driver who hit a black pet dog at night and fled the scene, mistaking it for a wild animal, guilty of hit-and-run.

The Chuncheon District Court Criminal Division 1 (Chief Judge Shim Hyun-geun) announced on the 2nd that it sentenced A (38), who was indicted for failure to take action after an accident under the Road Traffic Act, to not guilty, the same as the original trial.

A was summarily indicted on charges of hitting and killing B’s pet dog, which entered the road on the left side of a residential area on a road in Jeongseon-gun around 7:30 p.m. on April 1 last year, and then leaving the scene. A filed a formal trial in protest, claiming innocence by stating, “I thought it was a wild animal and did not realize the animal had died.”

[Image source=Yonhap News]

The Chuncheon District Court Yeongwol Branch, which handled the first trial, judged A’s claim to be reasonable and acquitted him. It was recognized that the pet dog suddenly darted out from a blind spot at high speed and went under the vehicle, and there was no evidence that A violated traffic laws such as speeding.

According to the black box footage, considering it was nighttime and the dog was black-colored, and it was difficult to clearly recognize the point where the dog darted out, it was judged that even if the driver had immediately slowed down upon discovery, avoiding the accident would have been difficult. Also, although the black box’s impact detection sound was triggered at the time of the accident and A said “Ah,” it was concluded that it was difficult to determine that A recognized the dog had died on the road as a result.

The appellate court also judged that the original trial’s ruling of not guilty was appropriate. The court dismissed the prosecution’s claim for guilt, stating, “The Supreme Court precedent cited by the prosecution is different from this case and is difficult to apply as is.”