[Anchor]

A report has been filed claiming that a former national football team player engaged in retaliatory driving in downtown Seoul. However, investigative authorities concluded there was insufficient evidence of an intent to threaten the other driver and did not recognize the charges. Legal experts, however, reached a different conclusion.

Reporter Jeong Jiyeon has an exclusive report.

[Reporter]

The moment a white SUV attempts to make a right turn toward a tunnel, a taxi driving straight passes by first. The SUV then suddenly accelerates and overtakes the taxi inside the tunnel.


[Han Moon-chul / Lawyer: Coming from behind with a loud roar. Saying, why didn't you yield to me?]

The problematic driving continued until exiting the tunnel.

However, a no-overtaking sign is posted right at the entrance section of the tunnel.

[Taxi Driver: It made a roaring noise and went into the second lane, then cut in front of the third lane. I was startled, experiencing the kind of fear that any ordinary driver would feel.]

The taxi driver recalls that despite warning the driver by turning on high beams, the threatening driving continued.

The vehicle, which was driving while straddling lanes, appeared to move toward the underpass before abruptly twisting the steering wheel once more.

In March, a report was filed claiming that retaliatory driving had occurred near a tunnel in Mapo-gu, Seoul, and the driver pointed out as the perpetrator was a former national football player, A.

Police launched an investigation into A on charges of special intimidation using a vehicle, but decided not to forward the case in June, concluding there was insufficient evidence to view it as retaliatory driving with intent to threaten.

Even after the taxi driver filed an objection with the prosecution, the prosecution also issued a non-indictment disposition, stating that it was not clearly evident that harm was intentionally inflicted and that it was not sufficient to cause fear.

However, some experts who reviewed the footage judged that there is considerable room to view A's actions as intentional.

[Shim Jun-ho / Former Police Officer and Lawyer: It moves out to the second lane. There is no reason for it to enter the third lane. When overtaking, they should maintain a distance between vehicles and use turn signals, but there was none of that. It appears intentional.]

Criticism has consistently been raised that the criteria for determining retaliatory driving are vague.

While sudden braking immediately after overtaking is cited as a representative type, points are also being raised that clearer judgment requirements, including the presence of intent, need to be established.

(Video reporting: Kim Seung-tae, Video editing: Shin Seeun, Design: Byun Dayoung, Footage provided by: Han Moon-chul TV)