Application of Minsik-i Law on Non-School Zone Roads... Court Says "Not Applicable"

Indicted Based Solely on Road Markings, Acquitted in Court
Local Government Response Corrects the Charge

A case in which the police applied the 'Minshik Law' (Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Specific Crimes) to a traffic accident that occurred on a road not designated as a children's protection zone (school zone) was found to be not guilty in court. The charge was based solely on road markings, even though the accident site was not a school zone, and the court corrected this based on a local government response stating it was a "mispainted marking."

According to the legal community on the 12th, the 11th Criminal Division of the Jeonju District Court (Presiding Judge Kim Sanggon) acquitted Mr. A (31), who was indicted on charges of violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Specific Crimes (causing injury in a children's protection zone), and only found him guilty of violating the Special Act on Traffic Accident Handling (causing injury), sentencing him to six months in prison, suspended for two years.

Image generated by ChatGPT.

The incident occurred at around 4:40 p.m. on October 10 last year, on a road in Pyeonghwa-dong, Wansan-gu, Jeonju. At the time, Mr. A was driving a passenger car and struck an elementary school student, Master B (11), who was crossing a crosswalk, causing injuries requiring eight weeks of recovery.

Immediately after the accident, the police determined the area to be a school zone and applied the Minshik Law to Mr. A solely because there was a "children's protection zone" marking on the road near the accident site. This charge was subsequently brought to prosecution as is.

However, the facts turned out to be completely different during the trial. The court, based on an official document received from Jeonju City, stated, "The accident site is not an area designated as a children's protection zone, and the road marking is specified in the Jeonju City report as 'believed to be mispainted.'"

Accordingly, the court ruled, "It cannot be considered a crime that occurred within a children's protection zone, so a not guilty verdict is rendered," but also acknowledged, "It is recognized that the defendant failed to fulfill his duty of care, resulting in injury to an elementary school student," and found him guilty of violating the Special Act on Traffic Accident Handling as an alternative charge.