Lawyer Ja-young Yoon, "The driver who left the scene after only asking about the condition after the traffic accident was fatal while running away."

■ Interview: Attorney Ja-young Yoon
■ Host: Reporter Ho-sang Lee

▷Ho-Sang Lee: It’s time for a lawyer’s eyes. Today, I am connected to lawyer Jayoung Yoon. Attorney, are you with me?

▶Jayoung Yoon: Yes, hello. This is Jayoung Yoon.

▷Lee Ho-sang: Yes, lawyer. How have you been?

▶Jayoung Yoon: Yes, I’m doing well.

▷Lee Ho-sang: The first case to be discussed is a man in his 50s who caused a traffic accident and disappeared after only asking the victim how he was doing. He was sentenced to a fine.

▶Jayoung Yoon: That’s right. Mr. A hit 9-year-old B, who was crossing the crosswalk, with his car on a road in Cheongwon-gu, Cheongju-si, around 11 a.m. on May 16th. However, immediately after the accident, Mr. A simply asked Ms. B how she was doing and did not inform her guardian or police of this fact. It is also known that he left the scene of the incident without leaving any information such as contact information or name that could identify his identity. Meanwhile, Ms. B suffered injuries that required two weeks of treatment due to this accident. Accordingly, the prosecution summarily indicted Mr. A on charges of violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Specific Crimes and causing death by fleeing, with a fine of 5 million won. Mr. A claimed that he had taken all protective measures. Now, Mr. A claimed that when he saw the victim's condition during the trial, he responded that the victim was okay and that he fulfilled his obligation to provide relief under the Road Traffic Act. Accordingly, the court pointed out that although the court was able to recognize that there was a high possibility of injury if it collided with a person, it emphasized that it only asked the 9-year-old child "if he was okay..." and then left the scene without providing the defendant's name or contact information and without contacting the victim with a guardian, etc., indicating that he did not fulfill his obligation to provide relief as stipulated in Article 54 of the Road Traffic Act. Accordingly, the defendant shocked the victim in a children's protection zone, failed to take protective measures, and made the young victim appear in court as a witness at the defendant's insistence. Since the sentence set by the summary order was insufficient, the fine was increased and sentenced to a fine of 7 million won.

▷Lee Ho-sang: This means the court decided that the man ran away. Without taking protective measures. I think any driver can encounter this type of situation. On the other hand, lawyer. Please explain to us what actions a driver should take when an accident like this occurs in order to prove that he did not flee.

▶Jayoung Yoon: Yes, when a traffic accident occurs, there may be cases where the victim strongly refuses hospital treatment, saying that there are no injuries or that he or she is fine. Even in this case, case law considers cases where the victim, despite being aware of the fact that he or she has suffered a casualty, fails to take protective measures and leaves the scene of the accident, resulting in a situation where it is impossible to determine who caused the accident, and runs away without taking action. In particular, if the victim is a minor, you will need to contact or confront the guardian. If you cannot contact the guardian, you will need to contact the police and explain the situation. Also, as in the above situation, believing that the victim is okay and not taking any action can constitute a crime of fleeing and causing injury. Now, as I mentioned earlier, in order to prevent this situation, it is necessary to obtain your personal information as well as the cooperation of the police.

▷Lee Ho-sang: Then, lawyer, if we say, for example, that we caused this accident, is it okay to give a business card to the injured person?

▶ Ja-Young Yoon: Yes, as mentioned in the previous precedent, if the person who caused the accident can be confirmed, it is difficult to view it as a runaway, so handing over a business card is also a good idea.

▷Lee Ho-sang: Ah, but anyway, just in case, it would be most important to contact the insurance company or report it to the police and let them know that such an incident occurred.

▶Jayoung Yoon: Yes. Yes.

▷Lee Ho-sang: Let’s look into the next case. I remember there was a news story about a man in his 60s who crashed into a building while driving drunk. A person in his 60s was sentenced to probation...

▶ Ja-young Yoon: Yes, Mr. A was driving a car on a road in Jeungpyeong-eup around 2 a.m. on February 4 with a blood alcohol content of 0.042%, which is the level for license cancellation, and rushed into a nearby convenience store. Mr. B, who was at the entrance of a convenience store, fell while trying to avoid it and suffered a two-week injury. Mr. A was brought to trial on charges of causing death by driving. The court sentenced him to two years in prison and four years of probation and ordered him to complete 120 hours of community service and 80 hours of law-abiding driving classes. The court ruled that Mr. A's blood alcohol level was relatively high, but that he was reflecting on his crime and that he was supporting his elderly mother alone, so the sentence was decided.

▷Ho-Sang Lee: We have dealt with a lot of drunk driving cases, and what I feel every time is that there are many cases where drunk driving cases are repeat offenders, that is, habitual offenders. Nevertheless, probation. In the case of more habitual criminals, isn't the sentence more severe? But in this case, he was a habitual offender and even rushed into a convenience store, so he was given probation. It seems like a lot of leniency has been shown.

▶ Ja-Young Yoon: It is known that Mr. A also received a summary order to pay a fine of 1 million won for drunk driving in 2008. A considerable amount of time has passed since he was first punished for drunk driving. As stated in the ruling, the fact that the person is reflecting on the crime appears to have been taken into consideration as a sentencing factor.

▷Lee Ho-sang: I see. When the lawyer explained earlier, I looked at the court's decision and found that it was the defendant. So, you said that the fact that the drunk driver was supporting his elderly mother on his own was also taken into consideration. There seem to be cases where the level of punishment is lowered when the defendant is the only family member with financial ability.

▶Jayoung Yoon: Yes, that’s right. When a defendant who is the only member of the family engaged in economic activities is arrested, whether the livelihood of the rest of the family may actually be threatened is sometimes referred to as sentencing data. Although such economic activity is one of the many sentencing factors, the presence of such circumstances does not necessarily mean that the sentence will be reduced or a suspended sentence will be imposed. In the end, if the punishment is high depending on the severity of the crime, it appears that arrest cannot be avoided even if there are such reasons.

▷Ho-Sang Lee: If you are responsible for the livelihood of your family, you should never drink and drive. Let's look at the last incident. Over the years, the company's money amounted to 1.3 billion won. That's amazing. Woman in her 30s. There was a case where a heavy sentence was imposed.

▶Jayoung Yoon: Yes. Mr. A, who was in charge of fund management at a company located in Cheongju, was indicted on charges of embezzling 1.3 billion won of company money 99 times over a period of 7 years from February 2013 to February 2020 and was sentenced to 6 years in prison. Mr. A manipulated the transaction details in the name of paying the CEO an advance payment. It is known that the company's funds were thus embezzled. It is known that he even used his own daughter's savings account to hide his crime. It is known that Mr. A ultimately used this money for personal purposes such as living expenses and stock investment. The court ruled that Mr. A had a long period of crime. The scale of the embezzlement is said to be large, and it appears that the victim's crime has also had an impact on the financial difficulties of the victim company. They pointed out that there was no serious effort to recover from the damage, and stated that the reason for the sentencing was that the crime was very deliberate and planned, so the crime was very serious.

▷Lee Ho-sang: You said the crime was very serious. It suddenly occurred to me, lawyer, what is the difference between general embezzlement and business-related embezzlement?

▶ Ja-Young Yoon: Let me briefly talk about embezzlement. Embezzlement is a crime in which a person who keeps another person's property embezzles it or refuses to return it, and is punishable by up to 5 years in prison. Punishable by a fine of less than 15 million won. To put it simply, if you rent a car and do not return it even after the rental period has ended, it can be embezzlement. In the case above, it can be considered business embezzlement. Embezzlement on the job is subject to increased punishment. When a person who keeps another person's property for business purposes commits such an act, the crime of business embezzlement is committed. Therefore, unlike general embezzlement, the sentence is imprisonment for up to 10 years. It is subject to a fine of up to 30 million won. If the amount of embezzlement is more than 500 million won, as in the above situation, specific laws apply and you can be sentenced to life or more than 5 years in prison.

▷Lee Ho-sang: I am a woman in her 30s with a large liver. They stole 1.3 billion won. All right. Mr. Lawyer, thank you for your words today. I will see you again in two weeks.

▶Jayoung Yoon: Yes, thank you.

▷Ho-Sang Lee: So far, you have been with lawyer Ja-Young Yoon of ‘The Eyes of a Lawyer’.


Source: BBS NEWS (https://news.bbsi.co.kr)



View original article - http://news.bbsi.co.kr/news/articleView.html?idxno=3039622