Case on Driver's Duty to Report a Car Accident to the Police

[2 KCCR 222, 89Hun-Ka118, August 27, 1990]

A. Background of the Case

In this case, the Constitutional Court reviewed Article 50 Section 2 of the Road Traffic Act that requires those involved in a traffic accident to report it voluntarily to the police, and upheld it to the limited extent that it is not applied to criminal matters.

Article 50 Section 2 of the Road Traffic Act (wholly amended by Act No. 3744 on August 4, 1984) provides that, if a driver of a vehicle causes a traffic accident that results in personal injury or property damage, the driver must report immediately the location of the accident, the number and extent of the casualties and injuries, the properties damaged, and the extent of the damage to a police officer or the nearest police station. Article 111 Item 3 of the same Act punishes the violation of the duty to report by a fine not exceeding two hundred thousand won or penal detention.

Therefore, in practice, the driver had to report the accident to the police regardless of its severity and preserve the scene of the accident until the arrival of a police officer. This made it convenient for the officer to gather testimonies and evidence necessary for any possible criminal prosecution of the reporting driver.

The petitioner was prosecuted for violation of the Road Traffic Act. It was alleged that he caused an accident while driving a car and failed to report the accident to the police, committing a crime under Article 50 Section 2 and Article 111 Item 3 of the Road Traffic Act. The petitioner requested constitutional review of the Act, and the trial court granted the motion.

B. Summary of the Decision

The Court held as constitutional Article 50 Section 2 and Article 111 Item 3 of the Road Traffic Act through a decision of limited constitutionality after reconfirming the right to refuse self-incrimination.

Article 12 Section 2 of the Constitution guarantees the right to refuse to testify against oneself, for the purpose of upholding the suspect’s or defendant's human rights over the goals of criminal prosecution, namely, the public interest in finding

substantive truths and achieving concrete social justice. The guarantee thereby protects human dignity and worth and further prevents inhumane coercion and torture aimed at inducing confessions. The guarantee does not apply only to criminal proceedings but to all other proceedings where a requested testimony may cause the witness to incriminate oneself. Therefore, the guarantee does not apply only to suspects and defendants currently subject to criminal investigations or trials but also to the drivers of accident vehicles who may be subject to criminal processes in the future and grants them the right to refuse to make a self-incriminating statement.

Homicide, infliction of bodily injury or destruction of property by occupational negligence under the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents constitute crimes of negligence. The elements of a crime of negligence can be satisfied by such objective data as the date and place of the accident, the number and extent of the casualties and injuries, and the character and value of the damaged properties. Such facts also serve as crucial data for sentencing on those crimes. Article 50 Section 2 of the Road Traffic Act forces the driver to report the facts that constitute the elements of these crimes and are important for sentencing. Therefore, the provision amounts to forcing the driver to report on his own crime, violating the privilege against self-incrimination.

The legislative goals of the provisions are the expeditious facilitation of aid to the injured and restoration of traffic order, and therefore the provisions are limited to objective information necessary for such purpose. However, in reality, the provisions have been used expansively by the police to facilitate making further inquiries, taking statements, and drafting scene-of-the-accident reports, which constitute criminal investigation geared ultimately toward the prosecution of the driver. The provisions therefore impose on the reporting driver the risk of criminal punishment, violating the right not to testify against oneself under the Constitution.

Nevertheless, the rate of traffic accidents has consistently increased due to the lack of an infrastructure necessary for maintaining traffic order. Further, there is a high risk of additional accidents occurring if swift action is not taken in response to the first accidents. Hence, there is a need for accidents to be promptly responded to. Therefore, the provisions do not violate the Constitution so long as they are interpreted to apply only to the extent necessary for aid to the injured and restoration of traffic order, and not to matters involving criminal punishment.

Justice Byun Jeong-Soo dissented, arguing for a simple decision of unconstitutionality on the grounds that the provisions violate the essence of the right not to testify against oneself.

C. Significance of the Decision and Aftermath of the Case

Following this decision, the National Assembly, in the amendment to the Road Traffic Act by Act No. 4872 on January 5, 1995, added a proviso in Article 50 Section 2 to exempt the duty to report to a police station in cases where only the vehicles that were in motion were damaged, and necessary measures had been taken to prevent danger on the road and to facilitate traffic flow. In other words, the duty to report had been exempted in cases where no persons had been injured or killed in a traffic accident.

Drivers who cause a car accident are still required to report it if a person has been injured. However, the reporting driver can now refuse to provide the officer on the scene with information that would place himself or herself at a disadvantage, and the officer on the scene cannot engage in any investigation for the purpose of criminal prosecution beyond the collection of objective data about the accidents, provision of aid to the injured, and restoration of traffic order, without the reporting driver’s consent. This decision was significant in that the Court applied the constitutional right not to be coerced into testimony against oneself to the reporting of traffic accidents. This provision on reporting traffic accidents was moved to Article 54 when the Road Traffic Act was wholly amended by Act No. 7545 on May 31, 2005.