Driver Who Hit Intoxicated Person Lying on Road at Midnight... Acquitted Again in Second Trial

"Drivers Find It Difficult to Spot Victims"

A driver in his 20s who fatally struck an intoxicated person lying on the road during early morning hours was acquitted again in the second trial.

On the 25th, the 5-3 Criminal Division of the Daejeon District Court (Chief Judge Lee Hyoseon) upheld the not guilty verdict in the appeal trial of A, a man in his 20s, who was charged with violating the Special Act on Traffic Accident Handling (causing death). Previously, the prosecution appealed, claiming factual errors and legal misinterpretations in the first trial’s ruling. However, the second trial court dismissed the appeal.

A was accused of fatally hitting B (55), who was lying on a one-lane road in Boryeong, Chungnam, around 3:30 a.m. on September 10, 2022, failing to avoid him. At the time, B was in a state of extreme intoxication with a blood alcohol concentration of 0.218%.

The prosecution argued that A neglected his duty to keep a proper lookout ahead, causing the victim’s death. However, the court emphasized that it is generally difficult to predict that a person would be lying on the road at night, and that caution must be exercised in recognizing a causal relationship between the victim’s death and the defendant’s negligence.

The first trial court stated, “According to the traffic accident analysis report, there is no objective result indicating at what point the defendant could have recognized the victim, and the traffic accident appraisal report shows that the victim lying down could not be seen from the driver’s perspective. It seems quite difficult for not only the defendant but also an average person to discover the victim and stop the vehicle to prevent the accident.” Considering that ▲ the victim was wearing dark upper and lower clothing and lying on the road without any movement, ▲ the victim’s lower body was partially obscured by cars parked on the right side of the road, and ▲ the defendant’s vehicle did not exceed the speed limit, the court acquitted the defendant.

The appellate court also stated, “There is no reason to consider the first trial’s judgment of not guilty as unjust,” and explained the sentencing rationale by saying, “There is no circumstance to find that the evaluation of evidence was wrong or that maintaining the judgment was improper, so the prosecutor’s appeal is not accepted.”