Monday, November 29

“Is it okay to drink if I don’t have an accident?”… Police and judges “outrageous” over ‘Partially unconstitutional of the Yun Chang-ho Act’

Police: “Even if there is a law, there are repeat offenders”
Judges “decision far from reality”

Getty Images Bank

When the Constitutional Court decided that some provisions of the ‘Yun Chang-ho Act’ (revised Road Traffic Act), which contained aggravating punishment for those caught driving under the influence of alcohol twice or more, were unconstitutional. It was a decision that ignored the reality that kept coming up.” On the 26th, we asked the police who dealt with the drunk driving case about their thoughts on the Constitutional Court’s decision the day before. There were many responses, saying, “I ignored the purpose of the Yun Chang-ho Act and the social consensus.” A police officer in charge of traffic affairs said, “Before the Yun Chang-ho Act, the punishment standards for drunk driving were far from the national legal appraisal. That’s what this law has raised,” he said. “(Before the Yoon Chang-ho Act) citizens were told to punish them severely, but the law did not follow them,” said police officer B, who works in the district office. In relation to this, Judge Koh Sang-gyo of the Jeonju District Court posted on the internal communication network of the court on the 25th, “Who is the Constitutional Court’s simple unconstitutional decision?” and criticized, “The Constitutional Court ignored the social consensus.”
Grounds for the Constitutional Court’s judgment that the provision was unconstitutionalIn summary, there is no time limit between past drunk driving and current drunk driving, and there is a possibility of uniformly aggravated punishment for recidivism drunk driving with relatively light crimes. The Constitutional Court also said, “Strong punishment for repeated drunk driving may be in line with the general public’s legal feelings, but in the end, immunity and insensitivity to severe punishment may arise, undermining the authority of the law and undermining the stability of the legal order.” . The ‘time limit’ cited by the Constitutional Court as an example was 10 years. Aggravated punishment by classifying it as “re-offending, for example, based on a past offense (drunk driving) that has been in the past 10 years or more” is excessive. However, there is an objection that the Constitutional Court ignores the reality that habitual drunk driving does not go away even after the Yoon Chang-ho Act was enforced. Police officer A said, “After the Yoon Chang-ho Act was enforced, it is true that the perception that ‘you can’t drive under the influence’ has arisen in society as a whole. However, this law does not stop repeat offenders. During the investigation, habitual drunk drivers know the law itself funny. Most of them just say, ‘It was because the surrogate driver didn’t come,'” he said. “The Constitutional Court’s judgment only adds anger and regret to the drunk driving victims and their families,” he said. Seung Jae-hyeon, a research fellow at the Korea Institute for Criminal Justice Policy, said, “It is not excessive to set the lower limit of two years in prison and a fine of 10 million won for double-drunk driving that has the potential to take a person’s life. etc. may be sentenced. Drunk driving is an act that cannot be done without negligence. It is also difficult to understand the judgment that there should be a time limit (for the former offender and the second offender),” he said. Judge Koh Sang-gyo also pointed out in an article posted to the court’s internal network, “If I haven’t been caught drunk driving for about 10 years, I’m not giving a false signal that if I don’t get into an accident, it’s okay to drink and drive again.” A senior high court judge said, “The Constitutional Court pointed out that the lower limit of two years in prison and a fine of 10 million won or more applies to those with relatively light crimes. It seems to be a decision that excessively limits the scope of the court’s judgment,” he said. A judge in the metropolitan area court also said, “Neither the court nor the prosecution say that, as a practical practice, heavy punishment should be given for previous crimes that occurred a long time ago. It is a decision that is far from reality,” he said.

Ha Tae-kyung of the Bareun Mirae Party (current People's Power lawmaker and Yoon Chang-ho's friends hold a press conference on the proposal of the Yun Chang-ho Act, which calls for stricter punishment for drunk driving, at the National Assembly Jeongron Hall on October 21, 2018. Yoon Chang-ho's friends also attended the press conference. Kim Kyung-ho

Ha Tae-kyung of the Bareun Mirae Party (current People’s Power lawmaker and Yoon Chang-ho’s friends hold a press conference on the proposal of the Yun Chang-ho Act, which calls for stricter punishment for drunk driving, at the National Assembly Jeongron Hall on October 21, 2018. Yoon Chang-ho’s friends also attended the press conference. Kim Kyung-ho [email protected]

Justices Lee Seon-ae and Moon Hyung-bae, who opposed the ruling by the Constitutional Court, pointed out that “about 40% of drunk driving traffic accidents are classified as traffic accidents caused by repeat offenders with a history of drug driving enforcement.” The two judges said, “Even if the act of drunk driving 10 years ago, there may be cases where the quality of the crime is very poor, such as a fatal accident caused by drunk driving. “It cannot be seen that the legislator’s assessment that it is unfair to punish a driver with such a history on the same basis as a first-time drunk driver is beyond the limits of its discretion.” The Yoon Chang-ho Act refers to the revised Road Traffic Act to strengthen the punishment for drunk driving in the wake of the case of Yoon Chang-ho, who was hit by a car driven by a drunken driver in Haeundae-gu, Busan in September 2018. The key point of the Yoon Chang-ho Act is to strengthen punishment for drunk driving, such as allowing a victim to be sentenced to life imprisonment or at least three years in prison, up from the existing one year in prison, if the victim dies as a result of drunk driving. According to Article 148-2 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, a person who violates the prohibition of drunk driving twice or more shall be punished by imprisonment with labor for not less than 2 years and not more than 5 years or by a fine of not less than 10 million won and not more than 20 million won. is stipulated By Lee Seung-jun, Park Ji-young, and Shin Min-jeong, staff reporters [email protected] ▶Related Articles
Constitutional Court “The ‘Yun Chang-ho Act’, aggravated punishment for drunk driving more than twice is unconstitutional”… why?
Incumbent judge criticizes the Constitutional Court for “ignoring social consensus” over the ‘Yun Chang-ho Act’ unconstitutional

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *