South Korean Courts Show No Mercy on Drug-Impaired Driving, Even for Livelihood Concerns

In South Korea, the judiciary has adopted a zero-tolerance policy towards driving under the influence of medication, even when prescribed by a doctor. Recent court rulings demonstrate a clear stance: the ability to drive safely is paramount, and personal circumstances, such as financial difficulties or reliance on driving for livelihood, will not sway decisions to revoke licenses. This firm approach underscores the courts' commitment to public safety, prioritizing the collective good over individual hardship.

“

The public interest to be achieved by revoking the license is greater.

The legal framework, as outlined in the Road Traffic Act, allows for license revocation if there is a risk of "inability to drive normally" due to drug use. Courts have consistently interpreted this to mean that any observable impairment, such as slurred speech, loss of balance, or memory loss regarding the accident, serves as grounds for revocation. This interpretation holds firm even when plaintiffs, like taxi drivers or delivery personnel, argue that losing their license will lead to severe economic distress or even destitution.

“

The key criterion for license revocation is the ability to drive normally.

The rationale behind these rulings is that the public interest in preventing potentially catastrophic accidents outweighs the personal inconvenience or hardship faced by the driver. The courts have emphasized that unless there is an "unavoidable necessity" to drive, the punishment for drug-impaired driving, which carries a high risk of severe accidents, is deemed more important. This principle has been applied consistently, even in cases involving minor accidents or those where medication was taken as prescribed for conditions like depression.

“

The public interest in punishing drug-impaired driving, which can lead to horrific accidents, is more important.