<Case Brief>

Court

Seoul Western District Court
Criminal Appellate Division 2-3


Presiding Judge

Lim Ki-hwan, Chief Judge


Defendant

Moon Da-hye (age 43)
Daughter of former President Moon Jae-in



—

Charges

Drunk Driving
(Violation of the Road Traffic Act)

Operating Illegal Lodging Businesses
(Violation of the Public Health Control Act)



—

Procedural History

First Instance (April 17, 2025)

Fine of ₩15 million imposed


Appeal

Prosecutors sought 1 year of imprisonment

Defendant also appealed the sentence


Second Instance (February 5, 2026)

Both appeals dismissed

Original fine fully upheld




—

Key Facts

On October 5, 2024, the defendant drove while heavily intoxicated near the Hamilton Hotel in Itaewon, Yongsan-gu.

She collided with a taxi while changing lanes.

Her blood alcohol concentration was 0.149%, well above Korea’s license revocation threshold of 0.08%.

CCTV Link: https://m.youtube.com/shorts/VUcox9PBDXg

Separately, she operated multiple illegal lodging facilities:

– An officetel in Yeongdeungpo,

– A villa in Yangpyeong-dong,

– A detached house in Hallim-eup, Jeju.


These operations generated approximately ₩1.36 billion in revenue over five years.



—

Court’s Reasoning

No new mitigating or aggravating factors

The appellate court found no change in circumstances that would justify altering the original sentence.


Trial court’s sentencing discretion respected,

The first-instance court’s assessment was deemed reasonable and proportionate.


Appeals lacked substantive grounds,

Neither the prosecution’s request for imprisonment nor the defendant’s challenge to the fine met the threshold for reversal.




—

Sentence

Fine: ₩15,000,000 (about $10,000)

No custodial sentence imposed.



—

Defendant’s Statement

The defendant acknowledged all charges and expressed remorse.

She apologized directly to the victims affected by the incident.



—

Why This Case Matters

Affirms appellate restraint in sentencing review.

Korean appellate courts remain reluctant to interfere absent clear error or new circumstances.


Demonstrates consistent application of sentencing standards.

High-profile status alone neither aggravated nor mitigated the outcome (well, mostly…).


Illustrates limits of prosecutorial appeals

Even serious DUI offenses do not automatically result in custodial sentences without additional aggravating factors.



—

Takeaway

> On appeal, sentencing is not retried. Without new facts or clear imbalance, courts defer to the trial judge’s discretion.

Article: https://www.yna.co.kr/view/AKR20260205098151004?input=1195m