DUI prison sentence replaced with a fine on appeal

Background

Our client drove after drinking, crashed into a median barrier, and was charged with drunk driving. The first-instance court sentenced him to 18 months in prison without suspension, meaning he would actually have to serve the term. The client appealed, arguing the sentence was too harsh.

The issue

The sole ground of appeal was that the first-instance sentence was excessive. Because the offense itself was not contested, the issue was what sentence was appropriate once the dangers of drunk driving were weighed against the circumstances in the client's favor.

Our approach

We appealed on the client's behalf on the ground that the first-instance sentence was too heavy. The client admitted all wrongdoing and sold the family car he had been using so that he would not drive again. The thrust of the appeal was that these efforts to prevent reoffending should be reflected in the sentence.

The court's reasoning

The appellate court stated clearly that the offense was very serious, noting among other things that the crash had turned the risk of drunk driving into reality. It nevertheless weighed a range of sentencing factors, including the client's admission, the sale of the car to prevent reoffending, and his conduct after the offense. It concluded that the first-instance court's choice of a prison sentence was excessive and unjust.

Outcome

The appellate court set aside the first-instance judgment and imposed a fine of KRW 15 million. If the fine is not paid, the client is to be held in a workhouse for a period calculated at KRW 100,000 per day, and the court also ordered provisional payment of an amount equal to the fine before the judgment becomes final.

What this case means

Drunk driving is punished severely, and here too the court found the offense serious. Even so, whether the defendant admits wrongdoing and takes concrete steps to prevent reoffending, such as selling the car, is a factor that appellate courts genuinely consider in sentencing.

This is the outcome of an individual case and does not guarantee the same result in similar matters. Some facts have been generalized to protect the parties involved.