Executive Summary
- Daegu District Court acquitted a driver involved in a fatal crash, citing a sudden loss of consciousness.
- Prosecutors argued negligence due to medication and lack of sleep, but the court rejected this claim.
- Dashcam footage and witness testimony of seizures supported the defense of a medical emergency.
DAEGU, South Korea — The Daegu District Court on Monday acquitted a driver in his 40s of criminal charges related to a fatal traffic accident, ruling that the collision was caused by a sudden loss of consciousness rather than negligence. The court found the defendant not guilty of violating the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents.
The incident occurred on April 24 of the previous year along Chilgok Jungang-daero in Daegu’s Buk-gu district. According to court records, the defendant’s vehicle was traveling toward the Taejeon intersection when it abruptly veered onto a sidewalk and struck a bus stop. The impact resulted in injuries to three pedestrians, including two individuals in their 80s, one of whom later succumbed to their injuries.
Prosecutors argued that the driver had breached his duty of care, alleging that his ability to drive was impaired. They cited evidence that the defendant had taken psychotropic medication on the day of the crash and had obtained limited sleep—no more than nine hours over the preceding three days—while attending a grandparent’s funeral.
The defense countered that the crash was the result of an unforeseeable medical emergency. Witnesses at the scene told investigators that the driver exhibited convulsions and was foaming at the mouth immediately following the impact. Furthermore, medical opinions submitted to the court suggested the symptoms were consistent with epilepsy or psychogenic loss of consciousness.
The presiding judge noted that dashcam footage corroborated the defense’s account, showing the vehicle obeying traffic signals and moving normally until approximately 14 seconds before the collision. The footage captured an abrupt change in direction just seven seconds before impact.
Judicial Reasoning
The court’s decision underscores the legal distinction between criminal negligence and unavoidable medical emergencies. In explaining the acquittal, the presiding judge stated that given the driving pattern and the defendant’s immediate post-accident condition, there was a “very high likelihood” he lost consciousness. This ruling reinforces the standard that criminal liability usually requires a voluntary act or a reachable duty of care. It is important to note that in all criminal proceedings, the burden of proof rests with the prosecution, and defendants are presumed innocent unless proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
