Supreme Court says police can't take back lenient sanction
The Supreme Court recently confirmed a lower court ruling that said a defendant accused of violating the Road Traffic Act cannot be punished, because he had already been given a more lenient punishment by mistake.
The defendant had been stopped riding an electric unicycle — a self-balancing single wheel personal transporter — under suspicion of riding it while drunk on June 28, 2023. He refused to take a sobriety test, and was ordered by police to pay an administrative fine of 100,000 won ($72), which he paid shortly the following month.
The officer in question thought the unicycle was a "personal mobility" device, defined by the Road Traffic Act as a motorized personal vehicle with maximum speed of 25 kilometers per hour and weighing under 30 kilograms. Drunk-driving of a personal mobility vehicle, or refusing to take a sobriety test while driving one, is subject to an administrative fine but not to criminal punishment.
But it was later found that the electric unicycle is actually categorized as a motorcycle. As such, the rider should have been subject to indictment and possible criminal punishment.
Despite the indictment by the prosecution, the district court had said police do not have the authority to revoke a punishment that has already been administered.
"Even if the law was wrongfully applied due to the mistake of those in charge, the defendant's rights must be protected.
The appellate court upheld the ruling, as did the country's highest court, finding no errors in the previous rulings' interpretation of the law.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Korea Herald
5 days ago
- Korea Herald
Supreme Court says police can't take back lenient sanction
The Supreme Court recently confirmed a lower court ruling that said a defendant accused of violating the Road Traffic Act cannot be punished, because he had already been given a more lenient punishment by mistake. The defendant had been stopped riding an electric unicycle — a self-balancing single wheel personal transporter — under suspicion of riding it while drunk on June 28, 2023. He refused to take a sobriety test, and was ordered by police to pay an administrative fine of 100,000 won ($72), which he paid shortly the following month. The officer in question thought the unicycle was a "personal mobility" device, defined by the Road Traffic Act as a motorized personal vehicle with maximum speed of 25 kilometers per hour and weighing under 30 kilograms. Drunk-driving of a personal mobility vehicle, or refusing to take a sobriety test while driving one, is subject to an administrative fine but not to criminal punishment. But it was later found that the electric unicycle is actually categorized as a motorcycle. As such, the rider should have been subject to indictment and possible criminal punishment. Despite the indictment by the prosecution, the district court had said police do not have the authority to revoke a punishment that has already been administered. "Even if the law was wrongfully applied due to the mistake of those in charge, the defendant's rights must be protected. The appellate court upheld the ruling, as did the country's highest court, finding no errors in the previous rulings' interpretation of the law.
Korea Herald
7 days ago
- Korea Herald
School killer submits 27 'letters of remorse' while in custody
Suspected murderer of 7-year-old admits charges, requests assessment for her mental health in 1st court hearing Myeong Jae-wan, the former elementary school teacher accused of murdering a 7-year-old student at her school on Feb. 10, has sent multiple letters of remorse and apology to the legal authorities ahead of her first court hearing Monday. It was reported that, as of Friday, the 48-year-old sent 27 letters to the court since hiring a lawyer on April 11. She also submitted a professional psychiatric evaluation of herself, leading to speculation that she would try claim diminished responsibility for the crime. In the hearing Monday morning at the Daejeon District Court, Myeong's lawyer requested a psychiatric evaluation of his client to the court, saying there was a need to determine how much her mental state had been a factor in the crime. She has admitted to all charges. Article 10 of the Criminal Act absolves the legal liability of those who are unable to control their actions due to mental illness. It has been found that the defendant had been treated for depression since up to eight years before the murder, and had taken six months' leave for mental health reasons on Dec. 9, but returned to work early on Dec. 30. Police investigators have categorized Myeong's crime as being of "abnormal motive" defined as an offense without clear or conventional motives. But prosecutors do not believe that her crime is directly related to her mental state or her medical history. Myeong had searched online for information related to murder before commiting the crime and hid the murder weapon beforehand, leading to the prosecution believing that it was a premediated attack. The victim, Kim Ha-neul, was a first-grader of an elementary school in Daejeon. She was lured by the defendant and attacked inside the school, dying despite receiving medical treatment at a nearby hospital. Can 'I'm sorry' lead to leniency? Submitting letters of remorse to court is a strategy opted by several people facing conviction, in a bid to reduce their sentences as much as possible. Trot singer Kim Ho-joong, whose two-year, six-month prison term for drunk driving was confirmed in May, reportedly submitted 100 letters to the appellate court in the month of February alone before the sentencing hearing. Genuine remorse by a defendant is cited as a general sentencing factor by the Sentencing Commission under the Supreme Court, which offers non-binding guidelines to judges in Korea. According to its definition, when evaluating remorse, courts should consider how the defendant came to admit their crime, and the efforts they made to repair the damage they inflicted and to ensure they would not commit similar crimes in the future. As such, submitting such letters itself is not a sentencing factor, but the court can give a lighter sentence based on its assessment of how remorseful the defendant is. According to Lawyer Cheon Chan-hee's column on law service platform Law Talk, whether or not a letter of remorse actually reduces sentence is largely based on who the judge is. "Some judges consider (letter of remorse) while sentencing, while others more consider whether or not (the defendant) had reached a settlement with the victim and compensated for the damage. How much a letter of remorse affects the sentence differs depending on the judge," he wrote. Recent data indicates that fewer judges are deciding to mitigate sentences because of letters of apology from the defendant. In 2022, there were 187 rulings that reduced sentences for "serious remorse" by the defendant, according to October data by the Sentencing Commission submitted to Rep. Seo Young-kyo of the Democratic Party of Korea. That was 4.1 percent of all rulings in the year, and marked a drastic decrease from the 1,265 of such rulings in 2021 and 1,515 rulings in 2020, which were each 27.3 percent of all rulings and 31.6 percent of all rulings in the respective years.
Korea Herald
20-05-2025
- Korea Herald
Supreme Court allows Trump to strip legal protections from 350,000 Venezuelans who risk deportation
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Monday allowed the Trump administration to strip legal protections from 350,000 Venezuelans, potentially exposing them to deportation. The court's order, with only one noted dissent, puts on hold a ruling from a federal judge in San Francisco that kept in place Temporary Protected Status for the Venezuelans that would have otherwise expired last month. The justices provided no rationale, which is common in emergency appeals. The status allows people already in the United States to live and work legally because their native countries are deemed unsafe for return due to natural disaster or civil strife. The high court's order appears to be the "single largest action in modern American history stripping any group of non-citizens of immigration status," said Ahilan Arulanantham, one of the attorneys for Venezuelan migrants. "This decision will force families to be in an impossible position either choosing to survive or choosing stability," said Cecilia Gonzalez Herrera, who sued to try and stop the Trump administration from revoking legal protections from her and others like her. "Venezuelans are not criminals," Gonzalez Herrera said. "We all deserve the chance to thrive without being sent back to danger," she said. The ramifications for the hundreds of thousands of people affected aren't yet clear, Arulanantham said. Mariana Moleros, her husband and their daughter left their native Venezuela in September 2005 after receiving death threats for their open political opposition to the socialist government. They came to the United States hoping to find peace and protection and requested asylum, but their application was denied. They were temporarily granted TPS but now they live in fear again — fear of being detained and deported to a country where they don't feel safe. "Today we are all exposed to being imprisoned in Venezuela if the US return us," said Moleros, a 44-year-old Venezuelan attorney who lives in Florida. "They should not deport someone who is at risk of being assassinated, torture and incarcerated." A federal appeals court had earlier rejected the administration's request to put the order on hold while the lawsuit continues. A hearing is set for next week in front of US District Judge Edward Chen, who had paused the administration's plans. In a statement, Homeland Security called the court's decision a "win for the American people and the safety of our communities" and said the Biden administration "exploited programs to let poorly vetted migrants into this country." "The Trump administration is reinstituting integrity into our immigration system to keep our homeland and its people safe," said spokeswoman Tricia McLaughlin. The case is the latest in a string of emergency appeals President Donald Trump's administration has made to the Supreme Court, many of them related to immigration and involving Venezuela. Earlier this month, the government asked the court to allow it to end humanitarian parole for hundreds of thousands of immigrants from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua and Venezuela, setting them up for potential deportation as well. The high court also has been involved in slowing Trump's efforts to swiftly deport Venezuelans accused of being gang members to a prison in El Salvador under an 18th century wartime law called the Alien Enemies Act. The complex economic and political crisis in Venezuela has driven more than 7.7 million people to leave the South American nation since 2013. Venezuela's most recent economic troubles pushed year-over-year inflation in April to 172%. The latest chapter even prompted President Nicolás Maduro to declare an "economic emergency" last month. Maduro, whose reelection last year to a third term has been condemned internationally as illegitimate, also has cracked down on his political opponents. In the dispute over TPS, the administration has moved aggressively to withdraw various protections that have allowed immigrants to remain in the country, including ending the temporary protected status for a total of 600,000 Venezuelans and 500,000 Haitians. That status is granted in 18-month increments. Venezuela was first designated for TPS in 2021; Haiti, in 2010. Last week, DHS announced that TPS for Afghanistan, first provided in 2022, would end in mid-July. The protections for Venezuelans had been set to expire April 7, but Chen found that the expiration threatened to severely disrupt the lives of hundreds of thousands of people and could cost billions in lost economic activity. Chen, who was appointed to the bench by Democratic President Barack Obama, found the government hadn't shown any harm caused by keeping the program alive. But Solicitor General D. John Sauer wrote on behalf of the administration that Chen's order impermissibly interferes with the administration's power over immigration and foreign affairs. In addition, Sauer told the justices, people affected by ending the protected status might have other legal options to try to remain in the country because the "decision to terminate TPS is not equivalent to a final removal order." Congress created TPS in 1990 to prevent deportations to countries suffering from natural disasters or civil strife.
