Regarding the case in which the incumbent senior prosecutor, who was accused of violating the Act on Special Cases concerning Traffic Accidents, was not indicted, some point out that the precedents that the prosecution used as a key basis for the disposition were not related to the case. Traffic accident experts emphasized the precedent presented by the prosecution, saying, “It is difficult to apply it as it is because the accident situation and issue are different from that of the chief prosecutor, and there are many cases where the perpetrators were convicted in traffic accidents similar to that of the chief prosecutor.”
Prosecutors say, “There is a precedent that a collision outside the safe zone is not an intrusion.”
According to the Hankook Ilbo’s report on the 7th, Rexton’s vehicle, driven by A, crossed the white safety zone between the lanes to enter the fifth lane of Olympic Road at 6:40 p.m. on July 8 last year, and collided with the victim’s Volvo vehicle, which was driving the fifth lane.
If a victim is injured in a traffic accident caused by 12 gross negligence acts (in this case, invasion of a safe zone) under the Special Act on Schools, the perpetrator is subject to criminal punishment regardless of whether or not he has comprehensive insurance. The police, who received a two-week medical certificate from the victim, considered the cause of the accident as an invasion of the safe zone and sent the prosecutor A to the prosecution on charges of violating the Special Act on Education.
However, the prosecution, which took over the case, did not indict “no right to indict,” citing that the point where the victim’s vehicle collided with the prosecutor A was outside the safety zone. Even if there was an act of invading the safe zone, the logic was that the cause of the accident could not be regarded as an invasion of the safe zone if the collision point was outside the safe zone. The prosecution said it had dismissed the prosecutor A, referring to the three precedents.
“The key issue of the case is not the point of collision. Application Inadequate”
Graphic = Reporter Kang Joon-koo
The three cases referred to by the prosecution were the accident in which a car waiting for a signal violated a safe zone and hit a driver of a jaywalking kickboard (Seoul Northern District Court 2020 Godan 1926) while moving into a safe zone. In all three cases, the court admitted the perpetrators violated the safe zone, but acquitted them.
If so, did the three cases presented not guilty because the collision point was outside the safe zone as explained by the prosecution? The Hankook Ilbo asked lawyers specializing in traffic accidents whether the issues of three precedents and the case of chief prosecutor A were similar. They analyzed, “In all three cases, there is no sign of a major dispute over whether the collision point is inside or outside the safe zone, and the court did not use it as the only condition for determining the cause of the accident.” It is said that the prosecution has not indicted him based on precedents not related to the case of the prosecutor A.
Lawyer Jeong Kyung-il, who defended more than 1,000 traffic accidents for more than 12 years, explained about the case, “The cause of the accident was essentially kickboard jaywalking, and the accident occurred after the perpetrator drove a certain distance even after leaving the safe zone.” ②Regarding the case, Lee Gil-woo, a lawyer specializing in traffic accidents, said, “The accident occurred while the perpetrator was stopped in a safe zone and was operating a new driving operation. The case of the chief prosecutor is different because the accident occurred in a series of processes to change course through invasion of the safe zone.”
Lawyer Chung Kyung-il also pointed out that the case No. 3 proposed by the prosecution was recognized as the perpetrator entered the safe zone by mistake, and the car crashed on the way back to its place, so it should not be compared to the accident on a continuous line for career change like the case of the chief prosecutor.
Lawyer Han Moon-chul, who is recognized as the top expert on traffic accidents, also said the prosecution is giving excessive meaning to the “crash point.” “If the accident occurred due to the violation of the safe zone, it is right to regard it as a gross negligence accident under the Special Act,” a lawyer said. “The prosecution’s logic of connecting the cause of the accident with only ‘inside or outside the safe zone’.”
A lot of people are guilty of changing course across the safe zone
The prosecution said, “According to the Supreme Court precedent, the safety zone is a sign to protect the pedestrians or the people in the safety zone, so it can be regarded as an accident of invasion of the safety zone only when the person or vehicle in the safety zone is impacted.” However, according to the prosecution’s explanation, even if a collision occurs while changing course across a safe zone, the perpetrators are unlikely to be criminally punished for violating the Special Act on Education. This is because the victim, who was driving normally, naturally gets collided while moving outside the safety zone.
Experts say that there are many cases in which they have been indicted and convicted on charges of violating the Special Education Act (lethal) under the same conditions as the chief prosecutor A. Lawyer Jung Kyung-il said, “There are several confirmed precedents last year,” and suggested a number of cases (Seoul Eastern District Court 2021 Kojeong 230) that collided with a victim who was driving five lanes before entering Olympic Road and four lanes.
Lawyer Lee Gil-woo said, “The prosecution indicted all the perpetrators, whether they were presented by the prosecution or guilty of similar cases, and even appealed if they were acquitted in the first trial,” adding, “It is hard to understand that they have not indicted only the chief prosecutor’s case.”
As the controversy over the prosecution’s “protecting its own family” expanded, political circles also took issue with the prosecution’s disposition. Oh Young-hwan, floor spokesman of the Democratic Party of Korea, held a press conference at the National Assembly later in the day and criticized, “It was an extraordinary disposition that could not come out if the perpetrator was not a senior prosecutor.”