Child Injured in School Zone Accident with '1 Week Recovery'... Offending Driver Acquitted in Appeal Trial

Incheon District Court Overturns Original Verdict, Imposes 5 Million Won Fine
"Injury Does Not Constitute Assault Under Criminal Law"

A driver in his 30s who caused bruises to a 6-year-old child while reversing on a crosswalk within a school zone was acquitted in the appellate court.

On the 5th, the 4th Criminal Appeals Division of the Incheon District Court (Presiding Judge Kim Yoon-jong) announced that it overturned the original ruling that fined Mr. A (32), who was charged with injury in a school zone under the Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Specific Crimes, and acquitted him.

The appearance of a children's protection zone in downtown Seoul. Unrelated to the article content / Photo by Moon Honam munonam@

Mr. A was tried on charges of injuring B (6), who was crossing a crosswalk on a bicycle during the pedestrian signal at around 2:20 p.m. on April 18, 2021, in a school zone in Yeonsu-gu, Incheon. Although B did not directly collide with Mr. A’s car, which was reversing slowly after passing the crosswalk, he fell off his bicycle trying to avoid the vehicle and sustained bruises requiring one week of medical treatment.

In the first trial, Mr. A stated, "I was reversing at a speed of 2 to 3 km/h, but the victim suddenly entered the crosswalk, making it difficult to avoid." He also argued, "The one-week medical diagnosis is not considered an injury," and claimed that the charge of injury in a school zone did not apply.

However, the first trial court did not accept Mr. A’s claims. In July of last year, the court ruled, "The defendant, who reversed the vehicle toward the crosswalk, could have foreseen the presence of the victim, and the victim’s injuries qualify as injuries under criminal law," and found Mr. A guilty.

However, the appellate court’s judgment differed. While it acknowledged that the accident was caused by Mr. A’s driving negligence, it ruled that the extent of B’s injuries did not constitute injury under criminal law.

The appellate court stated, "The defendant’s vehicle was partially on the crosswalk when reversing and ultimately moved to the middle of the crosswalk’s width. It is difficult to expect a child victim to notice the vehicle’s reversing lights and avoid it, so the defendant’s negligence is recognized." However, it added, "The victim received a diagnosis of ‘partial bruising’ requiring one week of rest. It does not appear to be an abrasion with bleeding, and there is no photographic or testimonial evidence beyond the medical certificate to confirm the extent of the injury."

The appellate court also explained its acquittal by noting that although the victim’s mother testified to investigators that "her son was injured and mentally distressed," "it is difficult to conclude that the victim sustained an injury based solely on the contents of the medical certificate."