 |
| © News1 Designer Kim Il-hwan |
A man in his 50s who assaulted a driver waiting for a signal for not letting him in his car while driving was sentenced to imprisonment.
The court judged that assaulting a victim who was stopped to wait for a signal corresponds to “assault while driving”, and applied the charges for violating the Act on Specific Crimes (Special Privileges Act) and sentenced them to imprisonment.
It is a ruling that draws attention amid controversy over the case of vice-minister of Justice Yong-gu Lee’s assault on a taxi driver because he applied only the charges of assault on the ground that he was not in operation.
The 12th Criminal Division of the Seoul Eastern District Law (President Judge Park Sang-gu) announced on the 30th that he was sentenced to 1 year and 6 months in prison for Mr. A, who was charged with violating the Act on aggravated punishment for certain crimes (driver assault, etc.).
Mr. A is angry at 3 p.m. on the 21st at a crossroad in Seongdong-gu, Seoul, for not inserting his car, and is accused of assaulting Mr. B.
After opening the driver’s door of Mr. B’s car, who was waiting for the signal, Mr. A grabbed Mr. B’s leg and hit him in the face with a fist.
As a result of this assault, Mr. B suffered a tooth subluxation injury that required 180 days of treatment. Tooth subluxation refers to a phenomenon in which teeth shake after being impacted.
Mr. A said, “When you approached the victim’s truck, the victim first opened the truck door, and the victim’s right foot was near the left door of the truck, so the victim tried to get off the truck without intention to continue driving.” “It does not correspond to the driver of a car that is’in operation’,” he claimed.
In addition, as there was no fact of assaulting the victim’s mouth, B’s tooth subluxation had nothing to do with his assault, he denied the charges.
However, the court recognized Mr. B as the’driver of a running car’.
The judge said, “The place where the defendant assaulted the victim was a crossroad road where a number of vehicles were frequently passing, and it was a place where there was sufficient concern that the assault on the driver would hinder traffic safety and order in the public.” It was temporarily stopped along with the victim’s truck and cars waiting for the signal change at the front and rear. When the signal changed, the truck had to be driven.”
He added, “If you look at the fact that the victim got off the truck to fight after being hit by the defendant, it can be seen that the victim was willing to continue driving not only when the truck was temporarily stopped, but also at the time of the assault.
In addition, in light of the legally adopted and investigated evidence and the dental certificate, it was judged that Mr. B’s injury could also be attributed to Mr. A’s assault.