Who are the people involved?

A (32, female) – passenger in the car and family member of the car’s insurance holder.

B – A’s acquaintance, believed to be the actual driver in a late-night traffic accident.


What happened? (The accident)

Date & time: 8 August 2023, around 2:41 a.m.

Place: A road in Jochiwon-eup, Sejong City.

Incident: The car overturned; B left the scene.

A was in the car at the time of the accident.


How did A get involved with the police?

Police contacted A’s family, the insurance policy holder, after the crash.

Around 9:09 a.m. the same day, A called the police and said she herself had been driving.

Around 12:00 p.m., A appeared at the police station:

She underwent a breathalyzer test (no alcohol detected).

In the initial interrogation she again said she was the driver.

Before signing the official statement, she changed her story and said B was actually driving.



Prosecutor’s view (범인도피 – harboring an offender)

A was indicted for harboring an offender, on the grounds that:

Her false statement (“I was the driver”) allegedly helped B evade arrest.

Because of her lie, the police supposedly lost the chance to check B’s blood alcohol level and prove drunk driving.



1st-instance judgment (Daejeon District Court)

Result: Guilty of harboring an offender.

Sentence: Fine of 3 million KRW.

Court’s reasoning in brief:

A lied to the police to cover for B, which the court viewed as serious misconduct,

But considered her admission and remorse in deciding the fine.



A’s appeal

A appealed, arguing the sentence was too heavy and legally unfair.


Appeal court’s decision (Daejeon High Court)

The High Court overturned (quashed) the 1st-instance judgment and acquitted A.

Key legal reasoning:

No duty to name the real offender

The court stated that A had no legal obligation to:

Declare that B was the true driver, or

Bring B to the police.



False statement not “active” or “concrete” enough

Her lie was not so specific or active that it made it impossible for the police to find or arrest B.

She also corrected her statement before the written record was finalized.


DUI proof issue was hypothetical

Even if A had appeared earlier and the police tried to calculate B’s blood-alcohol level later using the Widmark formula, that would still be only a hypothetical reconstruction.

Therefore, it was too speculative to say her false statement actually prevented proof of B’s drunk driving.



On this basis, the High Court held that the elements of 범인도피 (harboring an offender) were not met, and acquittal was appropriate.


Why this case matters

The ruling clarifies that, in Korean law:

A mere false self-incriminating statement (pretending “I was the driver”) is not automatically 범인도피,

Especially when the person has no legal duty to identify the real offender, and

The lie does not concretely and substantially block the investigation or arrest of the true offender.

Article: https://mobile.newsis.com/view/NISX20251117_0003405617