Acquittal in Fatal Electric Kick Scooter Collision After Defense Rebuts Speeding and Phone Claims

Case Overview

A driver prosecuted over a fatal collision with a person riding an electric kick scooter across a multi-lane road at night was acquitted at trial. The prosecution argued that the driver had been speeding and using a mobile phone, and also pointed to a civil settlement recommendation as evidence of fault. The defense commissioned a forensic examination of the driver's phone and re-analyzed the accident appraisals already in the file, showing that neither the alleged speed nor the alleged phone use established criminal negligence. The acquittal became final when the prosecution did not appeal.

Background

The client was driving in the third lane of a road with five lanes in each direction in the early hours of the morning. A person riding an electric kick scooter entered the roadway from the left side of the client's direction of travel and crossed against the traffic signal. The scooter collided with the client's car, and the rider died from the collision.

The collision happened in darkness. Headlights from vehicles in the opposite lanes were reflecting across the roadway, and the rider was dressed entirely in dark clothing. Those conditions made the rider extremely difficult to perceive in time to react.

Criminal Allegation

The prosecution charged the client with causing death through a traffic accident under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents. It alleged that the client had been driving at approximately 71 to 84 kilometers per hour in a zone with a limit of about 60 kilometers per hour — roughly 11 to 24 kilometers per hour over the limit — and that the client had been on a phone call and had therefore failed to keep a proper lookout.

A fatal traffic accident charge of this kind carries up to five years' imprisonment or a fine of up to 20 million won. Because the charge is criminal, the presence of liability insurance does not by itself remove exposure to punishment.

Key Legal Issues

Three issues drove the case.

The first was causation. The prosecution treated the alleged speeding as the reason the driver failed to see the rider in time. The defense argued that this was a separate question: unless the collision could have been avoided at the posted limit, the speed could not be the basis for responsibility for the death.

The second was whether the driver had actually been on a phone call. Dash camera audio can capture sounds that resemble a conversation, but audio alone does not establish that a call took place.

The third was the effect of civil compensation. The insurer had paid after a court-issued reconciliation recommendation became final. Under Korean law, an insurer's civil liability to compensate does not establish that the driver was criminally negligent.

Underlying all three was a practical question: at night, on a road where traffic had a green signal, could the driver reasonably have foreseen and avoided a scooter rider crossing five lanes against the signal?

Defense Strategy

The defense began with visibility. It reconstructed the conditions at the scene — the darkness, the reflected headlights from the opposite lanes, and the rider's dark clothing — and argued that a driver proceeding on a green signal could not reasonably anticipate a scooter crossing five lanes against the signal.

The file already contained accident appraisals by the National Forensic Service and the Korea Road Traffic Authority. Rather than treating those reports as fixed conclusions, the defense analyzed them closely, identified the passages that supported the client's position, and brought those findings to the court's attention.

On the phone allegation, the client explained that he had been speaking to himself, not holding a conversation. The investigation had checked call records but had not examined the handset itself. The defense commissioned an independent forensic examination of the client's phone and submitted the result as evidence. The examination found no indication that a call had taken place during the relevant period of driving.

Finally, the defense separated civil compensation from criminal responsibility. The insurer's payment following the reconciliation recommendation reflected liability to compensate under the automobile accident compensation framework, not an admission that the driver had been criminally negligent.

Outcome

The court acquitted the client. It could not be established beyond reasonable doubt that the client had been negligent, or that any negligence had caused the accident. The prosecution did not appeal, and the acquittal became final.

What This Case Shows

The prosecution's case rested on three separate propositions — speed, phone use, and civil compensation — and each had to be answered on its own terms. Re-reading existing expert appraisals for findings favorable to the client, commissioning an independent forensic examination where the investigation had left a gap, and explaining why a civil settlement is not a criminal admission were together enough to defeat the charge.

Every case turns on its own facts, the available video and phone records, and how the technical questions are framed. The outcome in one matter does not predict the outcome in another. Matters of this kind are handled as part of Taeshin Law Firm's Criminal Defense practice.