The driver, the daycare teacher in charge, and the daycare director, all of whom were sentenced to prison terms in the first trial for failing to see a child who had just gotten off a daycare bus and subsequently running over and killing her, admitted to the charges and pleaded for leniency during their appeal.
The Criminal Division 3-1 of the Changwon District Court, Gyeongnam (Presiding Judges Oh Taekwon, Kwon Miyeon, and Jeong Hyeonhui) held the first hearing of the appeal on October 21.
Previously, at around 10:40 a.m. on June 21 last year, 19-month-old D was run over and killed after getting off a daycare bus for a field trip and standing in front of the vehicle in the parking lot of the Sancheong County Public Health Center.
Driver A was sentenced to one year and six months in prison in the first trial for moving the vehicle without checking whether all the children had reached a safe location after dropping them off, resulting in D’s death.
Teacher B and Director C were indicted for failing to fulfill their professional duty of care to confirm that all children had reached a safe location after disembarking one by one before instructing the driver to depart. In the first trial, B was sentenced to one year and six months in prison, and C received a one-year prison sentence.
After the first trial, all three defendants appealed, citing excessive sentencing. At this hearing, they admitted to all charges. Previously, A and C had denied the charges in the first trial.
A’s attorney stated, “The defendant saw the teachers holding the children’s hands and helping them off the bus from the driver’s seat after stopping the vehicle, so he did not consider the possibility that the victim might be sitting in front of the vehicle. According to the integrated bus operation guidelines for children, the driver is not allowed to leave the driver’s seat while the engine is running, so he could not directly check whether the teachers had moved the children to a safe location or go and ask the teachers.”
The attorney continued, “The defendant supports his father in his eighties and mother in her seventies, so prolonged incarceration would impact his dependents. He has no prior criminal record and has lived diligently, volunteering at his church. Please take these circumstances into consideration and grant leniency.”
B’s attorney said, “From the beginning of the investigation, defendant B has consistently acknowledged her responsibility. She has suffered from social anxiety and depression due to guilt over failing to protect the child, and she continues to struggle with trauma.”
He added, “However, please consider that the defendant did her best under the circumstances of being responsible for multiple children at once. At the time of the incident, five teachers had to supervise 29 infants and toddlers, but there were no specific instructions or agreements regarding the disembarking process or supervision. The parking location was farther than usual, and the accident resulted from a combination of multiple people’s mistakes and misfortune, making it difficult to assign sole responsibility to one individual. Please show as much leniency as possible.”
C’s attorney stated, “C was not present at the scene at the time. It is rare for a director to be held criminally responsible for a traffic accident caused by an employee’s negligence. In a comprehensive evaluation just before the accident, the daycare received top marks in all areas, so it is hard to say there were operational issues. Moreover, as a daycare operated under contract with the county, the defendant had no authority over budget or staffing decisions.”
He also said, “The defendant, who has no criminal record, is experiencing significant hardship from being incarcerated for the first time following the accident. Please reconsider whether the sentence imposed truly reflects her culpability and grant leniency.”
In his final statement, A said, “I have committed a grave sin for which I cannot even ask forgiveness. I offer my deepest apologies to the parents and family, who must bear indescribable grief and pain for the rest of their lives.”
B said, “I am truly sorry to the parents who lost their beloved child due to my negligence. I am also deeply sorry to the child in heaven for failing to protect her. I will carry this guilt for the rest of my life. However, I hope you will consider that I always did my best as a teacher.”
C said, “During my 35 years of work, I have always put the children first and ensured that teachers cared for them with a mother’s heart. I once again apologize to the victim.”
The father of the deceased child, E, attended the appeal hearing that day.
Granted permission to speak from the gallery, E said tearfully, “Since the accident, time has stopped for our family. The emptiness left by our child only grows, and we experience the pain of our lives collapsing hundreds of times each day.”
He continued, “During the first trial, the defendants continued to deny the charges and tried to shift responsibility onto each other. Now they claim to admit the charges, but this appears to be a strategic move to seek a reduced sentence, not genuine remorse.”
E emphasized, “The harm and trauma suffered by our family are irreparable, and the responsibility lies with the defendants. We make it clear here that we have no intention of reaching any settlement.”
He further pleaded, “I earnestly ask the appellate court to respect the first trial’s verdict and render a stern and just decision so that the defendants are held legally accountable.”
The prosecution, which appealed on the grounds of factual error and excessive sentencing, requested sentences of three years in prison for A and B, and two years for C.
The court concluded the hearing on this case and is scheduled to deliver its verdict on November 27.
© The Asia Business Daily(www.asiae.co.kr). All rights reserved.
