Police Decide Not to Charge a Drunk Driver for Hit-and-Run after He Fatally Hit a Child in a School Zone: Victim’s Family Protests

A School Zone in Seoul (irrelevant to the article) / Lee Joon-heon

The police did not charge a man in his thirties of hit-and-run after he fatally hit a child while driving under the influence in front of an elementary school in Cheongdam-dong, Gangnam-gu, Seoul. The child’s bereaved family is gathering support for a petition against the police decision, claiming that the driver should be charged for a hit-and-run as well.

According to the police on December 7, the Gangnam Police Station in Seoul did not include the charge of hit-and-run when requesting an arrest warrant for A, a thirty-something male, for the death of a child in a protection area for children, according to the Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Specific Crimes (also known as the Minsik Law or Minsigi bill). This charge is applied when a person causes the death of a child under the age of thirteen in a protection area for children (School Zone).

In the afternoon of December 2, A hit and killed B (aged 9), a third grader at Eonbuk Elementary School in Cheongdam-dong, who was returning home after afterschool classes, in front of the school’s back gate while driving under the influence. At the time, A’s blood alcohol level was higher than 0.08%, the standard for a license revocation.

A, who lived nearby, did not stop, but parked his car at home and then returned to the accident site. Reportedly, he told the police that he was not aware of the accident and only went to the scene because of the commotion. Based on the fact that A went to the scene about 40 seconds after he parked his car and asked a person nearby to call 112, the police determined that he had no intention to flee the scene of the accident.

B’s family opposed saying that A failed to take any action to save the child on site immediately after the accident and urged the police to charge him with hit-and-run claiming that it was impossible for him to not have known that there had been an accident. The family is currently gathering support for a petition calling for law enforcement authorities to prosecute A for a hit-and-run as well. In the petition, B’s family wrote, “It appears the charges against the driver are being reduced, not applying hit-and-run on the offender,” and criticized, “We cannot erase the suspicion that the investigation of this case is being conducted poorly.”

The police arrested A at the scene on the day of the accident and requested an arrest warrant. On December 4, the suspect questioning prior to arrest (warrant review) took place at the Seoul Central District Court. The court announced, “We acknowledge the possibility of his fleeing from the law due to the gravity of the crime,” and issued the warrant. The police will question A on the details of the accident and transfer his case to the Prosecution Service.