Case Type: Violation of the Road Traffic Act

Disposition: Arrest Warrant Request Refined/Returned by the Prosecution

Case Summary: 

1. Overview of the Case and Adverse Circumstances 

The client was placed under investigation for violating the Road Traffic Act after refusing a law enforcement officer's request to submit to a breathalyzer test while driving home after drinking. Having two prior DUI convictions (in 2007 and 2019), the client was legally subject to aggravated recidivist penalties under the Road Traffic Act. Furthermore, during the initial phase of the investigation, the client made several inaccurate statements, which severely undermined the investigative agency's trust. Citing the gravity of the offense along with the potential risk of flight and destruction of evidence, the police submitted a request for an arrest warrant.

2. Key Defense Strategies and Legal Arguments 

Invoking the principle of non-custodial investigation under Article 198, Paragraph 1 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and analyzing the grounds for detention under Article 70, Paragraph 1, Suh & Co. presented a multi-layered defense demonstrating that the client posed no risk of flight or spoliation of evidence. Immediately upon retention, we counseled the client to retract the initial false statements and fully admit to the charges, thereby eliminating any perceived motive to destroy evidence. In addition, we proactively notified the prosecution that the original dashcam SD card had been preserved intact and was ready for immediate submission, fundamentally neutralizing allegations of potential evidence tampering. Furthermore, we provided verifiable documentation establishing that the client had maintained a long-term stable residence, was gainfully employed as a plant manager, and was the sole caregiver for an ailing mother suffering from a stroke. By highlighting these facts, we argued that taking the client into custody would inflict disproportionate and irreversible collateral damage on innocent dependents, violating the constitutional principle of proportionality. Lastly, we substantiated the client’s genuine rehabilitation efforts through concrete actions, such as the sale of the vehicle and commencement of professional alcohol addiction counseling and therapy.

3. Final Outcome and Takeaway 

Reviewing the legal arguments and objective evidence submitted by Suh & Co., the prosecution denied the police’s request for an arrest warrant. As a result, the client averted immediate job loss and familial destabilization, securing the right to prepare a legal defense under non-custodial status while continuing to work and care for the family. This case demonstrates that even in high-stakes situations where an arrest warrant is sought due to multiple DUI offenses and a breathalyzer refusal, incarceration can be successfully prevented through timely correction of initial statements, objective preservation of evidence, and a logically structured defense detailing proactive rehabilitation.

Case Inquiry: Attorney Min-hoo Kim