"I Was the Driver": Traffic Case Nearly Closed...Prosecution Probe Exposes "Cover-Up for Uninsured Acquaintance"

Prosecution Indicts Suspect Without Detention on Charges of Harboring Offender
Prosecution Requests Reinvestigation After Police Decide Not to Refer Case

A traffic accident that was about to be closed by the police as a simple incident because the vehicle was covered by comprehensive insurance was revealed through a supplementary investigation by the prosecution to be a case of a “driver swap” to conceal an uninsured driver, as well as an insurance fraud scheme.

Seoul Central District Prosecutors' Office, Seocho-gu, Seoul. Kang Jinhyung, Reporter

According to the legal community on February 23, the Criminal Division 2 of the Seoul Central District Prosecutors' Office announced that on February 13 it had indicted, without detention, suspect A on charges of harboring an offender, for making a false confession that he was the driver in the traffic accident in order to hide the real perpetrator.

Initially, the police decided not to refer the case to the prosecution on the grounds that the offending vehicle was covered by comprehensive insurance.

However, after receiving and reviewing the records of the non-referral case, the prosecution analyzed the victim's statement and the black box footage from the victim's vehicle and concluded that there was a high possibility that A was not the actual driver. The prosecution pointed out that the police had closed the case without sufficient investigation into this issue and requested a full reinvestigation.

In line with the prosecution's request, the police reopened the investigation and discovered that the actual driver was B, an acquaintance of A. A had given a false statement to the police, pretending that he had caused the accident, in order to cover up his acquaintance's crime. After confirming these facts, the police referred the case to the prosecution.

Continuing with additional supplementary investigations, the prosecution conducted interviews with those involved in the case and analyzed their criminal records, and established that the “driver swap” was not merely out of loyalty but was intended to fraudulently obtain insurance money. The prosecution confirmed that because the real perpetrator B did not have automobile insurance, A, who was covered by comprehensive insurance, pretended to have caused the accident instead and filed a false insurance claim.

A prosecution official said, "This is a case where we thoroughly reviewed the records of a case that was on the verge of being buried at the police stage and uncovered the full scope of the crime and the substantive truth through proactive supplementary investigation," adding, "We will continue to closely examine non-referral cases to ensure that judicial justice is not undermined."