The Supreme Court of South Korea has ruled that a driver involved in a DUI accident who accepts a passenger's offer to switch drivers and allows them to provide false statements can be charged with aiding escape.
On June 18, the Supreme Court's full bench, led by Justice Oh Kyung-mi, upheld the guilty verdict against former police officer A, who was charged with aiding escape and violating traffic laws related to DUI.
A, who was a traffic officer with the Jeonbuk Provincial Police Agency, caused an accident in May 2023 while driving under the influence, with a blood alcohol concentration of 0.097%, which is above the legal limit for license suspension.
Immediately after the accident, a friend, identified as B, offered to drive, and A accepted, moving to the back seat and exiting the vehicle. When police arrived, they only tested B for alcohol and classified the incident as a simple accident. However, the situation unraveled when an insurance company employee reported suspicions of driver switching. A was subsequently dismissed from his position and received a 10-month prison sentence, suspended for two years, along with 80 hours of community service in both lower courts.
During the appeal, there was significant interest in whether the Supreme Court would maintain its previous ruling that aiding a false confession constitutes aiding escape.
Historically, the Supreme Court has ruled that self-escape by a perpetrator is not punishable under criminal law, but actions that induce false confessions or facilitate them are considered an abuse of rights and warrant punishment.
A majority of justices concluded that maintaining the existing legal principles is essential for upholding public order.
The majority opinion stated, "Manipulating escape through false confessions can obscure the true perpetrator and distort the investigative focus, making it difficult or impossible to investigate, prosecute, and execute sentences against the actual offender. This poses a significant risk of severely obstructing the criminal justice process."
They added, "Such actions cannot be seen as a natural expression of human nature, and legally permitting them would greatly undermine the criminal justice system's ability to maintain safety and order in society, potentially eroding public trust in the legal system."
The court also rejected arguments from some justices advocating for a distinction between 'inducing' and 'aiding,' asserting that treating the two differently based on the initial form of involvement is not justified. This concern stems from the potential for offenders to exploit close relationships with accomplices to disguise inducing actions as aiding, which could create gaps in accountability and hinder the establishment of factual truth.
Conversely, Justices Lee Heung-gu, Oh Kyung-mi, Seo Kyung-hwan, Kwon Young-jun, and Park Young-jae expressed dissenting opinions, arguing for a change in precedent. They viewed the aiding escape charge as a provision aimed at punishing third parties who protect offenders, asserting that aiding an already determined perpetrator's actions is merely an extension of self-escape and should not be punishable under the principle of legality. However, their views did not prevail in the ruling.
* This article has been translated by AI.
Copyright ⓒ Aju Press All rights reserved.