“Drink more at home” after drunk driving… Guilt and innocence overturned due to contradictions in statements

A man in his 40s who avoided punishment in the first trial by claiming to have drunk more alcohol after returning home after being caught for drunk driving had his conviction overturned on appeal.

Chuncheon District Court Criminal Division 1-1 (Chief Judge Lee Geun-young) announced on the 8th that it overturned the original verdict of acquitting Mr. A (44), who was indicted on charges of drunk driving under the Road Traffic Act, and sentenced him to six months in prison and two years of probation.

He was also ordered to take 40 hours of law-abiding driving classes.

In December 2024, Mr. A was brought to trial on charges of driving a vehicle while drunk with a blood alcohol concentration of 0.068% (more than 0.03% to less than 0.08%) on a 4.5km section of a road in Wonju.

Mr. A, who went to court for this matter, argued, "It is true that I drank a small amount of alcohol and drove, but the result of drinking one more can of beer at home after returning home was reflected in the breathalyzer test."

The Wonju branch of the Chuncheon District Court, which was in charge of the first trial, declared him not guilty, saying, "It is difficult to reject the defendant's claim that he drank additional beer after returning home, and considering this, we cannot conclude that his blood alcohol content at the time was above the punishment standard of 0.03%."

The prosecutor appealed the decision, saying, “In light of the objective evidence and circumstances, such as photos of the scene and the contents of the 112 report, the original judgment was illegal due to misconception of facts.”

The appellate court, which reexamined the case, determined that it was highly likely that Mr. A was already drunk, given the 112 report that Mr. A's vehicle was staggering and crossing lanes.

The court also noted that Mr. A changed his statement several times, including denying drunk driving, then belatedly admitting it, and then claiming that he drank beer after returning home.

In addition, the fact that Mr. A sent a text message to his wife while going home with a police officer and continued writing the text message without opening the door even after arriving in front of the house was considered suspicious.

The couple claimed that the text messages at the time were meant to reassure each other, but the court ruled that they may have been instructions to pretend that they drank beer after returning home.

In addition, Mr. A's wife stated that Mr. A took out the beer and poured it into a cup even though he did not ask for it, but Mr. A stated that he asked his wife to take out the beer and drank it from a can, adding to the weight of the guilt verdict.

The court determined that the blood alcohol concentration at the time was 0.068% as a result of applying the 'Weedmark formula', which calculates the blood alcohol concentration at the time of driving by reflecting the amount of alcohol decomposition per hour in the breathalyzer test.

The court said, "The defendant has a history of being fined for drunk driving under the Road Traffic Act in 2009," and "the excuses or actions he made to avoid punishment after being caught for drunk driving are extremely bad, as they go beyond the scope of the exercise of the right to defense and are intended to mislead investigative agencies or the court," and sentenced the defendant to a suspended prison sentence.