KLAWGURU.COM

Korean Law Demystified!

Step Outside the Lines, Still Protected: Constitutional Court Overturns Decision Not to Prosecute Driver Who Hit Pedestrian

By ,

Korea’s Constitutional Court has ruled that a pedestrian who was struck while slightly outside the painted lines of a (zebra) crosswalk is still entitled to the full protection of road traffic law — and that the prosecutor’s decision not to charge the driver violated the victim’s constitutional rights. Here are the key points.

Issue

Does a pedestrian who is struck by a vehicle while physically outside the marked boundaries of a crosswalk qualify as a “pedestrian using a crosswalk” under the Road Traffic Act — and was the prosecutor’s decision not to charge the driver constitutionally sound?

Facts

  • On January 31, 2024, driver B approached a crosswalk without stopping and struck pedestrian A, who was in the process of crossing. A suffered injuries requiring approximately six weeks of treatment.
  • The Seoul Central District Prosecutors’ Office declined to prosecute B, finding that A had been struck at a point outside the crosswalk markings and therefore could not be considered a “pedestrian on a crosswalk” for purposes of the Road Traffic Act’s mandatory stop requirement.
  • A filed a constitutional complaint challenging the non-prosecution decision.

Constitutional Court Decision

  • The Constitutional Court ruled unanimously on May 21, 2026, that the non-prosecution decision violated A’s rights to equality and to participate in criminal proceedings, and overturned it (2024헌마569).
  • The court found that A qualified as a pedestrian intending to use the crosswalk under Article 27(1) of the Road Traffic Act, which obligates drivers to stop before a crosswalk when a pedestrian is crossing or about to cross.
  • On the facts, A had been standing at the crosswalk, checked for oncoming traffic, and begun moving toward the crosswalk — clearly manifesting an intention to cross. That conduct falls within the statutory description of a pedestrian “about to use a crosswalk.”
  • On the question of being outside the markings, the court found that A had strayed slightly beyond the crosswalk lines not through any deliberate choice but due to the structural characteristics of the crosswalk itself. Viewed as a whole, A was in the course of using the crosswalk when the collision occurred.
  • The court held that where a pedestrian is struck at a point slightly outside the crosswalk markings, but the overall sequence of events shows they were in the process of crossing, the incident falls within the scope of the crosswalk protection provisions — both the “about to cross” and the “crossing” formulations of Article 27(1).
  • Driver B therefore had a legal obligation to stop before the crosswalk and not obstruct A’s crossing. The failure to stop was a violation of that obligation, and the prosecutor’s decision not to charge B was legally unsustainable.

Key Takeaways

  • Pedestrian protection under the Road Traffic Act is not limited to the precise painted boundaries of a crosswalk. What matters is whether the pedestrian was in the process of using — or clearly about to use — the crosswalk as part of a continuous crossing movement.
  • A pedestrian who has checked for traffic and begun stepping toward a crosswalk has manifested a sufficient intention to cross, triggering the driver’s duty to stop.
  • Minor deviation from the crosswalk markings due to physical features of the crossing — rather than a deliberate choice to jaywalk — does not strip a pedestrian of statutory protection.
  • Prosecutors who decline to charge based solely on the fact that the point of impact was outside the marked lines, without considering the overall context of the crossing, apply the law too narrowly and may violate the victim’s constitutional right to participate in criminal proceedings.

Why This Matters

This ruling meaningfully expands the practical scope of pedestrian protection at crosswalks in Korea. It establishes that the legal analysis must look at the crossing as a whole — not just the exact coordinates of the collision — and that structural crosswalk features that push a pedestrian slightly outside the lines do not forfeit their legal protection. For prosecutors handling crosswalk collision cases, the decision sets a clear standard: the statutory protection attaches to the act of crossing, not solely to the painted zone. For drivers, it reinforces that the duty to stop at crosswalks applies whenever a pedestrian is visibly in the process of crossing, regardless of whether they are perfectly within the lines.

Article: https://www.lawtimes.co.kr/news/articleView.html?idxno=221054

Leave a comment