[News UP] 'Drinking hit-and-run' Kim Ho-joong was sentenced to 2 years and 6 months in prison, "irresponsible escape"

■ Host: Anchor Yoon Jae-hee
■ Starring: Lawyer Jeong Kyung-il

* The text below may differ from the actual broadcast content, so please check the broadcast for more accurate information. Please specify [YTN News UP] when quoting.

[Anchor]
Let's find out about major incident accidents with lawyer Jeong Kyung-il. Welcome. Kim Ho-joong, who is suspected of running a drunk driving hit-and-run yesterday morning, was sentenced to prison in the first trial. Two and a half years in prison. This is lower than the prosecution's old sentence, right?

[Kyungil Jung]
The prosecution's sentence is three years, and the court asked for two and a half years, but the sentence is higher than that of the general same case. However, the case itself was a celebrity, not a public figure, and the nature of the case itself did not admit the crime from the beginning, but denied the fact that he was drunk and performed, then changed the driver and removed memory cards to hide the crime, and this seems to be very bad for the court as it happened in a live broadcast by the whole nation.

[Anchor]
Kim Ho-joong admitted to driving under the influence of alcohol, but this was excluded from the charges.

[Kyungil Jung]
That's right. In this case, he drove under the influence of alcohol, caused a traffic accident, and left the crime scene. Then, drunk driving can be said to be the beginning of the first, that is, the starting point of the crime. However, there are parts that have not been disclosed because this part cannot be cracked down later. In the end, what's left is the part that caused the accident and ran away, a drunk driver, a car accident and a run away, and a criminal escape teacher. It's like being punished only for this part.

[Anchor]
It is said that Kim Ho-joong has written three letters of apology belatedly, but nevertheless, the fact that he was sentenced to prison like this has been applied to a crime of disgust, can we see it like this?

[Kyungil Jung]
Submission of a letter of apology, agreement with the victim, and a petition from the victim were submitted. It is called a first-time offense, and this is a very favorable sentencing factor for the defendant. However, as you all know, this part, which viewed the crime itself badly, seems to have been so unfavorable that it exceeded the sentencing factors favorable to all suspects.

[Anchor]
If you get caught driving under the influence of alcohol, you run away and then you get caught drinking additionally, and this is happening a lot on the spot?

[Kyungil Jung]
In the past, this was not well known to the general public. It appeared occasionally when confirming rulings, but in this case, the entire nation was unintentionally aware of the fact that they denied such drinking and even found the situation of secondary drinking on CCTV, and since this incident, it seems to be reported a lot because there are many cases like this. I haven't been able to check the exact statistics, but they are appearing a lot in the news. It turns out that there are a lot of incidents happening.

[Anchor]
There was a similar incident in Jeonju. A drunk driver driving a Porsche hit the police and caused 2 casualties, and the driver was sentenced to 6 years in prison.

[Kyungil Jung]
In this case, it can also be seen as drunk driving, that is, secondary drinking and an extension of the escape case. Incident accidents are bound to happen. There are also drunk driving traffic incidents, and in this case, the driver must have been injured because the driver was involved in an accident after the accident. Usually, alcohol crackdowns take place at the scene, but he got hurt and complained of his pain, so he took him to the hospital.

However, the police had to follow him, but he couldn't follow him, so he eventually fled from the hospital and drank an additional can of beer with an acquaintance who came with him. It's insane that the person who caused the drunk driving car accident drinks beer while he or she is sick. In the end, he drank secondarily to hide his drinking. This should be considered, but the court failed to properly measure the alcohol consumption at the time of the accident.

Usually, if there is a first drink and a second drink, logically, you can calculate it except for the second drink, but when in doubt, it is the presumption of innocence in the interests of the defendant, so remove it in favor of the defendant if possible. Then what's left is not much blood alcohol concentration, and what's measured is not a measure of blood alcohol concentration at the time of the accident. Since it was measured after that, the reverse calculation of the Weedmark formula occurs, so as it was applied in favor of the defendant, only the suspension of the license was left, and it was a simple drunk driving accident.

Then, the crime of simple drunk driving traffic accidents and casualties is bound to be sentenced to up to five years in prison, regardless of the number of people, whether death or injury. However, in this case, he was sentenced to six years in prison. The two crimes of drunk driving and violating the Special Act on the Handling of Traffic Accidents are competing, so the statutory sentence is up to 7 years and 6 months. Then, he was sentenced to up to seven years and six years in prison, and the inside story is also there. This is the victim, the deceased and 350 million, and the injured and 300 million. So, I reached an agreement for a total of 650,000. I've even reached an agreement, but the court has grasped all these post-war situations and failed to prosecute them for dangerous driving injuries, but it's evaluated that the sentence was appropriate for that.

[Anchor]
During the conversation, the blood alcohol concentration should have been measured right away at the scene, but there was a part where I missed that part, and the method of reverse calculation after that is the Widmark formula, but this doesn't mean you don't have any evidence, right?

[Kyungil Jung]
We have no choice but to punish it according to the Withmark formula, that is, the blood alcohol level at the time of the accident, so you have to measure the blood alcohol level at the time of driving. However, if you run away after an accident, you can't measure it, so theoretically, the Widmark formula is based on the amount of alcohol you drink, alcohol level, and how much you drank.

However, in theory, the blood alcohol level at the time of the accident is reversely estimated, and the reduction level is usually called sobering when driving under the influence of alcohol. It falls from 0.008 to 0.03% per hour, and this deviation is large. Then, when reverse calculation is performed, it does not fall out much even if it takes a long time to measure this part and when you drink. However, in this case, he drank additional alcohol after the accident. Then, when I take this part out, I take it out a lot. Then, if you look at the ruling after taking out all of this and that, there is a strange phenomenon in which the blood alcohol level of drunk driving is negative by applying the Widmark formula. In this case as well, due to the extension of the case, drunk driving was ultimately prosecuted as a simple drunk driving traffic accident without being able to prosecute it as a crime of homicide and injury by dangerous driving.

[Anchor]
Looking at it, this perpetrator committed the crime during the probation period and was criminally punished for two drunk driving in the past. Can't drunk driving be easily cut off?

[Kyungil Jung]
That's right. In this case, he committed a crime during the probation period and had a history of drinking in the past. Because of this, he was sentenced to six years in prison, but this case signaled that the court should not drink and drive, and that hiding alcohol could lead to heavier punishment than prosecuted crimes. As such, the court has so far been only punishing those who hide or drive under the influence of alcohol, but as in this ruling, it is not a punishment that is heavier than the law.

The court punished him lightly, but he has been lenient, but if he doesn't, he thinks he's a relatively high sentence. In this way, the crime of homicide and injury by dangerous driving alone is 3 to 30 years in prison. It's also a life sentence. However, most of them are sentenced to only three years in prison. If the sentence is sentenced according to the lower limit, at least there is an upper limit and there is a lower limit, it will help eradicate such drunk driving.

[Anchor]
Anyway, I don't think I should ever drink and drive. Let's move on to the next case.

The identity of Yang Kwang-joon, the suspect in the murder of the body of the Bukhangang River, was revealed, and it was the first time that the identity of the suspect as a soldier was disclosed.

[Kyungil Jung]
That's right. It's the first time since personal information disclosure was introduced that a person with military status has been disclosed like this. In the case of this case, there was a lot of controversy over whether it was an accidental crime, a premeditated crime, and the brutality of the crime. Another peculiarity is that in the past, when the decision to disclose personal information was made, the decision to disclose it was made immediately, but in this case, the suspect refused to comply with the decision to disclose information during a five-day grace period.

I filed an objection. When I filed an objection, I applied for a provisional injunction against the application for information disclosure, and the court decided to dismiss such a case with the intention that there was no immediate risk or preventable damage, and it was unusual that it took some time after the decision was made.

[Anchor]
Anyway, as a result, the personal information was released, and this is the part you mentioned in the process. Some point out whether it is right for the suspect to file an objection to information disclosure.

[Kyungil]
If such personal information is disclosed, the principle of presumption of innocence is still applied, so irreversible damage may occur to the suspect. Considering this purpose, the disclosure decision is not made immediately, but a five-day grace period is being prepared and objectionable methods, administrative trials, and administrative litigation procedures are in place.

However, if there is such a part, there is a part where objections to all disclosure decisions eventually lead to more gaps in that period. Then, the reason why such personal information is usually disclosed is to close all cases on this part quickly and disclose such information while attention is focused, but the purpose of this information disclosure system is somewhat faded.

[Anchor]
Some point out that there is a standard for disclosing personal information of violent crime suspects, but this is ambiguous. The cruelty or seriousness of the crime is the same, but how should I view it without some being disclosed and others being disclosed?

[Kyungil Jung]
As such, there are requirements for disclosing personal information. These criteria are met, such as the seriousness of the crime, the clarity of the evidence, the public interest, and the extent to which the suspect is violated, but most of them are general and abstract, so they are disclosed or not depending on the case. In a specific example, the assault of apartment residents in Jungnang-gu in August at the Seoul Northern District Prosecutors' Office is called the smoking area murder case. The suspect Choi Seong-wu decided to disclose his personal information.

However, in July of the Seoul Western District Prosecutors' Office, Japan, a resident of an apartment complex like Eunpyeong-gu, also decided not to disclose personal information about suspects in the murder case. Then, when the general public thinks about it, they have no choice but to say, "What are you going to reveal and what are you going to reveal?" It is necessary to prepare more specific standards for the disclosure of personal information.

[Anchor]
I see. We've even pointed out the controversy over personal information disclosure. That's all for today. I was with lawyer Jeong Kyung-il. Thank you.