1. The Client's Crisis

In June 2024, the client was caught driving a cargo truck for approximately 20.9 km while intoxicated, with a blood alcohol concentration of 0.038%, and without a driver's license.

The problem was the client's prior record. He had a total of nine prior similar offenses, including six drunk-driving offenses and three unlicensed-driving offenses, and just one year earlier he had been sentenced to one year in prison, suspended for two years, for drunk driving. While that suspension period had not yet ended, he committed the same offense again.

If a similar offense is committed during a suspended sentence period, an actual prison sentence is unavoidable, and the existing suspended sentence is generally also revoked, resulting in detention for the combined term. The prosecution requested a two-year prison sentence, and the client was in an absolute crisis in which he practically had to prepare for custody.

2. Key Issues

There were two major difficult issues to address in this case. First, the measured blood alcohol concentration of 0.038% only slightly exceeded the enforcement threshold of 0.03%, but the fact that he had nine prior offenses and had reoffended during a suspended sentence period worked decisively against him at sentencing. Second, under these extremely unfavorable conditions, a basis had to be established for the court to choose a fine rather than imprisonment. Simple remorse or pleas alone were not enough to outweigh the weight of nine prior offenses, so scientific and objective arguments were necessary.

3. The Strategy

Attorney Shin Mi-jin established a multifaceted strategy that targeted both the legal issues and the sentencing factors.

First, she scientifically argued the possibility that the blood alcohol concentration was still rising. Since the measurement was taken about 70 minutes after the client had drunk alcohol with a meal, she demonstrated that the measurement time fell within the rising phase of blood alcohol concentration, making it possible that the actual driving occurred when the level was still below the legal limit. She also advanced the argument that, considering the measuring device's margin of mechanical error (±0.003%), the proof of the offense was insufficient.

Second, she supported with objective evidence the client's substantial efforts to prevent reoffending. She proved through a vehicle transfer certificate that the client had immediately disposed of his own vehicle out of a determination never to drive again, and she also explained that he was voluntarily participating in alcohol abstinence treatment and counseling programs at a hospital.

Third, she presented the client's family circumstances in detail. As the head of a household caring for an elderly mother alone, and as someone responsible for the livelihood of a brother with a physical disability and a son who was unable to become financially independent, she informed the court, together with petitions from around ten family members and acquaintances, that if he were detained, the remaining family's livelihood would collapse.

Fourth, she explained that no personal injury or property damage had occurred in this case, and that the client had chronic conditions such as diabetes and was in urgent need of insulin treatment.

4. Outcome and Recovery

Although the court viewed the fact that the offense was committed again during a suspended sentence period with seriousness, it comprehensively considered the low blood alcohol concentration presented by Attorney Shin Mi-jin, the possibility that the level was still rising, the efforts to prevent reoffending such as disposing of the vehicle and undergoing abstinence treatment, and the family's livelihood situation. Despite the prosecution's request for two years in prison, the court sentenced the client to a fine of 15 million won, sparing him both an actual prison sentence and the revocation of his suspended sentence.

Obtaining a fine under the extremely unfavorable conditions of nine similar offenses during a suspended sentence period is an unusual result. The client was able to continue supporting his family once again.

If you are wondering how to respond in a similar situation, the outcome may differ depending on the specific facts of the case, so we recommend consulting a specialist.

Assigned attorney: Shin Mi-jin, Attorney

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