Supreme Court: Blood test evidence invalid if right to refuse not stated

A South Korean Supreme Court ruling has established that evidence from a blood alcohol test is inadmissible if the driver was not informed of their right to refuse the procedure. The court upheld a lower court's acquittal of a driver accused of drunk driving, emphasizing that consent for blood collection must be voluntary and informed.

The case involved a driver arrested for operating a vehicle with a blood alcohol content of 0.129%, above the legal limit for license revocation. When the breathalyzer malfunctioned, police obtained consent for a blood test. The driver was initially given a summary penalty but appealed, arguing they were not properly informed of their right to refuse the blood draw.

“

If the blood test results and the analysis of blood alcohol content are to be used as evidence of guilt, it must be acknowledged that the driver's consent was voluntary.

Lower courts sided with the driver, stating police only informed them they had to choose between a breath test or a blood test, without mentioning the option to refuse. The appellate court found the blood sample was illegally obtained evidence. The Supreme Court agreed, dismissing the prosecution's appeal and affirming that consent must be freely given after being fully informed of all rights.

“

Police only stated that the driver had to choose between a breath test or a blood test, and did not separately inform them of their right to refuse a blood test.