A 20-Year-Old Who Drank and Drove Again After License Revocation... Why Did the Court Show Leniency?

Court: "No family to guide on the right path"
"Last chance for leniency... Hope to become a responsible member of society"

A man in his 20s who was caught driving under the influence again just one month after his license was revoked for drunk driving received a reduced sentence in the appellate court. The court showed leniency considering that he grew up without any family to care for him.

According to the legal community on the 23rd, the Criminal Appeals Division 1 of the Daejeon District Court (Presiding Judge Na Kyung-sun) overturned the original ruling and sentenced A (21) to 1 year and 6 months in prison with a 3-year probation for charges of drunk driving, driving without a license, and violating the Automobile Liability Insurance Act.

Previously, A was caught driving under the influence in front of a restaurant in Yuseong-gu, Daejeon, in May last year while his license was already revoked. About a month later, on June 11, he was charged again for driving approximately 7 km while heavily intoxicated.

At both times of drunk driving, A’s blood alcohol concentration exceeded 0.14%, well above the license cancellation level, and the vehicle he drove was not covered by mandatory automobile insurance. According to the prosecution, A had also been caught in March last year driving an uninsured vehicle while intoxicated.

The first trial court sentenced A to 1 year and 6 months in prison, stating, “The guilt is by no means light, as he drank and drove even immediately after being investigated by the police for drunk driving.”

However, A appealed, claiming the sentence was excessive, and the second trial court decided on probation, calling it “the last chance for leniency.”

The appellate court explained the sentencing rationale, saying, “He grew up moving from one protective facility to another without knowing who his parents were, resulting in a weak sense of law-abiding, especially a lack of awareness regarding traffic regulations. Considering that there was no family to guide and care for him on the right path, it does not seem appropriate to place all the blame solely on the defendant.”

They added, “Fortunately, since no casualties occurred, we have decided to accept the claim that the sentence was unfair. We hope he will become a responsible member of society.”