Hit-and-Run Charges in Korea: When Leaving the Scene Is a Crime

In Korea, leaving the scene of an accident is only aggravated hit-and-run if the driver knew that someone had been hurt and left before taking the measures the Road Traffic Act requires. Two elements therefore decide the charge: awareness of the injury, and departure before assistance. Each is contested separately, and the injury itself must exist independently of the driver's conduct.

Most consultations begin the same way — the driver says they did not realise they had hit anyone, and has already been reported. This guide explains where that account helps, where it does not, and what the file has to show.

1. The penalty is among the heaviest in traffic cases

Article 5-3(1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Specific Crimes covers a driver who causes a person injury or death through traffic and then flees without taking the measures required by article 54(1) of the Road Traffic Act, such as rescuing the victim.

No fine is available in a fatal case, and in an injury case the fine floor is five million won. That is why the two elements below are argued so hard.

2. What counts as flight

The Supreme Court defined flight in its decision of 28 September 2006 (2006Do3441) as leaving the scene of the accident before performing the duties the Road Traffic Act imposes, in circumstances where it can no longer be established who caused the accident, despite the driver having known that the accident injured or killed someone.

The definition contains both requirements: awareness of the injury, and departure before the required measures. A driver who did not know, or who left for a reason unrelated to avoiding responsibility, is outside it.

3. When the driver did not realise anyone was hurt

In the case above the driver moved about 400 metres after the collision and stopped, and did not properly take the required measures. The Supreme Court nonetheless held that criminal intent to flee could not be inferred, taking account of how the accident happened, the impact the driver would have felt, and road conditions that made it difficult to stop immediately.

That outcome is not a template. In practice this issue is not argued on impression but on material: where the impact occurred and how much damage was caused, the force the driver would have felt inside the vehicle, dashcam footage and audio, the reaction of any passenger, and the steering path immediately after the collision.

4. Leaving a name and a number is not enough

The Supreme Court has held that a driver who passed an identity card to the injured person through a tow-truck driver before the ambulance arrived and before any police officer attended, then left without the injured person's agreement and returned about twenty minutes later, had fled (Supreme Court, 10 March 2011, 2010Do16027). Making yourself identifiable is not the same as performing the duty to assist.

The same reasoning appears in its decision of 9 December 2005 (2005Do5981): asking a bystander to deal with the accident and leaving before assistance was provided is not taking the measures the Act requires.

5. The injury must actually exist

The aggravated provision presupposes the offence under article 268 of the Criminal Act, so the prosecution must prove that a person was actually injured or killed. Whether the victim suffered an injury sufficient to support criminal liability is therefore argued as often as awareness is, and a medical certificate does not settle it.

In its decision of 4 December 2025 (2025Do11886) the Supreme Court restated the test. An injury means damage to physical integrity or an impairment of physiological function. A wound so trivial that it could occur in ordinary daily life without any assault, that heals naturally without any need for treatment and that does not interfere with daily living is not an injury. The assessment is not abstract or uniform: it is made against the victim's actual age, sex and physique.

The Court has also set the standard for medical certificates (25 November 2016, 2016Do15018, and the 2025 decision above). Where a certificate rests mainly on the victim's subjective complaint of pain and was issued on medical possibility alone, its probative value must be assessed with great caution. The relevant questions are how close the examination and the issue date were to the accident, whether anything about the issue is suspicious, whether the site and severity described match the account of the collision, whether the complaint can be attributed to a new cause unrelated to any pre-existing condition, what basis the doctor had, and when and why treatment first began after the accident.

6. What is actually done to contest the injury

• Sync the dashcam footage from both vehicles and nearby cars second by second, to establish the force of the impact.
• Compare the damaged parts and the repair estimate — whether the work stopped at panel beating and painting.
• Look for a traffic accident analysis, such as one from the National Forensic Service, on whether the force was transmitted to a person.
• Apply to the treating institution for a factual inquiry: whether the diagnosis rested on interview alone, without imaging, and on what basis it was issued.
• Check whether the same site had been treated before the accident.
• Examine the victim as a witness and identify where the statement to the investigation differs from the statement in court.

7. Whether assistance was needed at all

The Supreme Court has held that where, taken together, the circumstances of the accident, the victim's age, the site and severity of the injury and the situation afterwards do not establish that the driver actually needed to assist, leaving the scene is not hit-and-run (Supreme Court, 10 May 2007, 2007Do2085).

The same decision immediately limited that proposition. Ordinarily it can be concluded that assistance was unnecessary only where the driver spoke with the victim directly and gave them a chance to describe pain, or at least stopped and checked their condition with their own eyes. Where that did not happen, a finding that no assistance was needed should not be reached lightly. Whether you asked and stopped to check is what separates the two outcomes.

8. Property damage only

Where only property was damaged and nobody was hurt, the Aggravated Punishment Act does not apply and the question is one under the Road Traffic Act. Failing to take the measures in article 54(1) carries up to five years' imprisonment or a fine up to 15 million won (art. 148).

There is an important qualification for car parks. Where it is clear that only a parked or stationary vehicle was damaged and the driver did not provide their details to the owner, article 148 does not apply; the penalty is a fine up to 200,000 won, detention or a minor fine under article 156(10). That is where the handling of a car-park scrape turns.

9. The licence consequence lasts five years

Where a licence is cancelled for failing to take the required measures and report after injuring or killing a person, no licence may be reissued for five years (Road Traffic Act art. 82(2)3). Where alcohol is also involved, further provisions apply on top.

10. What to secure before the interview

• The original dashcam files and any site or nearby CCTV — these are overwritten with time.
• Photographs of the vehicle damage and the repair estimate, which show the force involved.
• The route taken after the collision, where you stopped, and when you returned.
• Contact with the victim and the time the insurer was notified.
• The medical certificate and the treatment history — the extent of injury decides which provision applies.

In a hit-and-run case the first statement about awareness largely determines everything that follows, and an uncertain recollection stated as a certainty is very hard to withdraw. Footage and vehicle condition should be reviewed before any statement is given. Contact Taeshin Law Firm for a confidential consultation in English.