1. The Client's Crisis

In 2023, a victim who had turned on the hazard lights and was standing outside their vehicle to handle a minor collision on a road in Seoul was struck by a truck coming from behind and died at the scene. The victim had been on the way home after working late into the night and passed away, leaving behind a spouse and two young children, aged 6 and 3.

There were two decisive ways in which this case differed from an ordinary traffic fatality case. First, the offender was driving without a driver's license for a distance of about 50 km from Incheon to Seoul. Second, immediately after the accident, the offender, fearing that the lack of a license would be discovered by investigators, impersonated his older brother by using his name and resident registration number, and forged and used documents such as written statements and various other records under his brother's name. As a result, a total of seven charges were brought against the offender, including violation of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents (causing death/injury), violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving without a license), forgery of private documents, uttering of forged private documents, forgery of a private signature, and uttering of a forged private signature.

2. Key Issues

There were three major issues to be addressed in this case. First, because the offender's vehicle was covered by comprehensive insurance, the question arose whether prosecution was possible under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents. Under the special provisions of that Act, accidents involving vehicles insured under comprehensive coverage generally cannot be prosecuted, but driving without a license falls under the 12 major negligent offenses and is therefore an exception that can be criminally punished. The key was to accurately explain this legal principle to the investigative authorities. Second, the offender's post-accident conduct (impersonation and document forgery) had to be properly reflected in sentencing. Third, the victim's family's desire for punishment and the actual scale of the harm had to be effectively conveyed to the court in order to secure a custodial sentence.

3. The Strategy

Attorney Yoon Ji-sang and Attorney Kim Deok-hwan were appointed as representatives for the victim's family immediately after the accident and participated in the entire process, from the investigative stage through the appeal, over a period of about two years.

First, they intervened early at the investigative stage. Within two weeks of the accident, they submitted a notice of appointment as victim representatives to the competent police station and accurately tracked the progress of the investigation so that all of the offender's criminal acts would be fully reflected in the investigation.

Second, they filed information disclosure requests with the prosecution and the police and obtained decisions to disclose the relevant information. Based on this, they reviewed the case file and established a strategy for responding at trial.

Third, they submitted a reference materials brief and a petition for severe punishment from the victim's spouse to the trial court. They specifically described, based on the concrete facts, that the victim was the head of a household with young children aged 6 and 3, that the offender had shown no apology or remorse, and that there had been not even minimal empathy or consolation for the bereaved family. Under the court's sentencing guidelines, the 'victim's desire for punishment' is expressly listed as an aggravating factor, so submitting it at the appropriate time directly affects whether a custodial sentence is imposed.

4. Result and Outcome

The trial court sentenced the offender to a custodial term of 1 year and 6 months in prison and imposed a fine of 3 million won on the offender's employing corporation. In explaining the sentence, the court cited as aggravating factors that the offender drove the vehicle without a license and failed to keep a proper lookout ahead, causing the victim's death; that the offender's conduct in impersonating his older brother and forging and using statements and signatures before the investigative authorities was highly blameworthy; that no settlement had been reached with the victims; and that the victim's family was petitioning for severe punishment.

The prosecutor appealed on the ground that the sentence was too lenient, but the appellate court found that the original sentence was within the reasonable scope of discretion and dismissed the prosecutor's appeal, leaving the 1 year and 6 month custodial sentence against the offender intact.

Attorneys in charge: Attorney Yoon Ji-sang · Attorney Kim Deok-hwan

This case has been partially de-identified within a scope that does not compromise the essence of the case in order to protect confidentiality.