Driver Asleep in Middle of Road... Verdict Overturned by a Glass of Water

[Anchor]

A truck driver with a blood alcohol concentration level high enough to warrant license revocation was found guilty of drunk driving in both the first and second trials. However, that ruling has now been overturned by the Supreme Court—all because of a single glass of water.

Reporter Jang Hun-gyeong brings us the details through Videomug.

[Reporter]

A man surnamed Kim had previously been fined for drunk driving back in 2019.

The prosecution applied charges of repeat drunk driving, and Kim was found guilty in both the first and second trials.

However, the Supreme Court delivered an unexpected ruling.

It overturned the lower court ruling, which had sentenced Kim to one year in prison with a two-year probation, and sent the case back to the Daejeon District Court.

What was the reason for the sudden reversal?

The issue was that the police failed to provide Kim with water to rinse his mouth before administering the breathalyzer test.

In 2017, the Korean National Police Agency revised its traffic enforcement guidelines to require officers to provide drivers with 200 ml of water to rinse their mouths prior to a breathalyzer test.

Starting in July 2023, this procedure was also explicitly stipulated in the enforcement rules of the Road Traffic Act, giving it legal binding force.

However, this procedure was not followed at the time of Kim's breathalyzer test.

Kim argued that because the police did not provide water to rinse his mouth, his blood alcohol concentration at the time of the test may have been measured higher than it actually was.

Although Kim's argument was rejected in the first and second trials, resulting in a guilty verdict, it became the decisive factor in overturning the ruling at the Supreme Court.

At the time, police officers approached the sleeping Kim to offer him water but turned back, and afterwards, Kim abruptly complied with the test without being given an opportunity to rinse his mouth.

The Supreme Court ruled that the procedures mandated by law cannot be omitted simply because Kim was asleep.

In principle, the results of a breathalyzer test conducted without following the water-provision procedure cannot be used as evidence of guilt.

The key point of contention between the conflicting rulings was the residual alcohol remaining in Kim's mouth.

The first trial court concluded that because more than 20 minutes had passed since Kim finished drinking before the test was conducted, the residual alcohol in his mouth was unlikely to have affected the measurement.

However, the Supreme Court judged that given variables such as hiccups or burps can occur during actual drunk driving enforcement sites, it cannot be ruled out that the breathalyzer reading could come out higher than actual levels simply because 20 minutes had passed.

While the Supreme Court did not acknowledge that Kim's actual blood alcohol level was lower, and it remains possible that the actual measurement result was accurate,

it emphasized that whether a result obtained without following statutory procedures can be used as evidence of guilt is a completely separate issue.

Then, how much does residual alcohol in the mouth actually affect breathalyzer test results?

According to a study conducted in the United States in 1978, when subjects did not actually drink alcohol but only brought an alcoholic beverage into contact with their mouths before taking a breath test, it took 10 to 19 minutes for the effect of the residual alcohol in the mouth to dissipate.

However, rinsing the mouth with warm water significantly reduced that time.

This means that residual alcohol in the mouth can affect test values, and rinsing the mouth with water can reduce that impact.

Following this Supreme Court ruling, projections suggest that legal battles surrounding testing procedures may continue in drunk driving trials across the country.

In particular, as test figures get closer to statutory punishment thresholds, even small amounts of residual alcohol can affect the results, meaning that footage capturing the situation at the time of enforcement—such as body cams or dashcams—could become even more crucial moving forward.

Last year, a total of 121 people lost their lives to drunk driving traffic accidents.

As drunk driving is a dangerous crime that can take the lives of others, there will likely be no disagreement that it must be strictly punished.

However, if the evidence supporting that punishment did not go through the correct procedures, can we trust that punishment?

This verdict, divided by a single glass of water,

makes us rethink the importance of the process used to secure evidence, just as much as the stern punishment for drunk driving.

(Photo: Yonhap News)

Produced by SBS Digital News
※ Please note: This article was translated by AI and may contain errors.