Open Decision Ledger · Criminal law
Who counts as a person who breached the drunk-driving ban twice or more
Supreme Court, Nov. 15, 2018, 2018Do11378 (judgment)
Case name: 도로교통법위반(음주운전)·성폭력범죄의처벌등에관한특례법위반(카메라등이용촬영)
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
For aggravated punishment under Article 148-2(1)(i) of the Road Traffic Act, does a 'person who has breached Article 44(1) two or more times' mean only a person whose earlier drunk driving has been made the subject of a final guilty judgment, and who must prove those earlier breaches?
Holding
It means, on the words of the provision, a person in whom it is established that drunk driving was committed two or more times in breach of the ban; a sentence or a final guilty judgment on those earlier acts is not required. The provision reflects the anti-normative character of repeated drunk driving, its markedly deficient compliance and safety consciousness, and aims to aggravate punishment, prevent danger to life and body, and establish traffic order. The court hears and decides whether the prior breaches exist and how many there are, on the related evidence under its free evaluation, but since that fact forms an element of the charge, the prosecution bears the burden of proving it.
Summary of the holding, verbatim
위 조항 중 ‘제44조 제1항을 2회 이상 위반한 사람’은 문언 그대로 2회 이상 음주운전 금지규정을 위반하여 음주운전을 하였던 사실이 인정되는 사람으로 해석해야 하고, 그에 대한 형의 선고나 유죄의 확정판결 등이 있어야만 하는 것은 아니다.
Unofficial English translation
The term 'a person who has violated Article 44 (1) two or more times' in the above provision must be interpreted, in accordance with its terms, as a person who is found to have driven a vehicle under the influence of alcohol in violation of the provision prohibiting driving under the influence of alcohol two or more times, and it is not the case that there must be a pronouncement of sentence or a final and conclusive judgment of guilty, etc. in respect thereof.
Disposition
Partly reversed and remanded Stated in the decision
원심판결 중 유죄 부분과 2017. 2. 27. 도로교통법 위반(음주운전) 무죄 부분을 파기하고, 이 부분 사건을 제주지방법원에 환송한다. 나머지 상고를 기각한다.
Unofficial English translation
The guilty part of the judgment of the court below and the not guilty part with respect to the violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving under the influence of alcohol) on February 27, 2017 are reversed, and the case as to this part is remanded to the Jeju District Court. The remaining final appeal is dismissed.
Form of the test
Elements stated Stated in the decision
위 조항 중 ‘제44조 제1항을 2회 이상 위반한 사람’은 문언 그대로 2회 이상 음주운전 금지규정을 위반하여 음주운전을 하였던 사실이 인정되는 사람으로 해석해야 하고
Unofficial English translation
The term 'a person who has violated Article 44 (1) two or more times' in the above provision must be interpreted, in accordance with its terms, as a person who is found to have driven a vehicle under the influence of alcohol in violation of the provision prohibiting driving under the influence of alcohol two or more times, and
Factors
- 행위주체를 단순히 2회 이상 음주운전 금지규정을 위반한 사람으로 정하고 있고
- 음주운전 금지규정을 반복적으로 위반하는 사람의 반규범적 속성, 즉 교통법규에 대한 준법정신이나 안전의식의 현저한 부족 등을 양형에 반영하여
- 위반전력 유무와 그 횟수는 법원이 관련 증거를 토대로 자유심증에 따라 심리·판단해야 한다
- 그 증명책임은 검사에게 있다
Unofficial English translation
• defines the subject of the act simply as a person who has violated the provision prohibiting driving under the influence of alcohol two or more times, and
• reflecting in sentencing the anti-normative attribute of persons who repeatedly violate the provision prohibiting driving under the influence of alcohol, namely a marked lack of a law-abiding spirit or awareness of safety with respect to traffic regulations, and
• whether and how many times there is a prior record of violations must be heard and determined by the court through free evaluation of evidence on the basis of the relevant evidence
• the burden of proof lies with the prosecutor
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 2018. 2. 13. 선고 2017도21363 판결
Unofficial English translation
Supreme Court Decision 2017Do21363 decided February 13, 2018
Decisions referred to
대법원 2018. 2. 13. 선고 2017도21363 판결
Burden of proof
The prosecution Stated in the decision
다만 이는 공소가 제기된 범죄의 구성요건을 이루는 사실이므로, 그 증명책임은 검사에게 있다.
Unofficial English translation
However, since this constitutes a fact forming the constituent elements of the crime for which public prosecution has been instituted, the burden of proof lies with the prosecutor.
Open question and revisit condition
When a prior drunk-driving breach is established only by records of a disposition made outside a criminal court, what degree of proof of the date and content of that breach does the prosecution need before Article 148-2(1)(i) applies?
A later Supreme Court decision on how prior breaches established only by non-judicial records are proved and counted would require this entry to be read again. Any amendment to Article 44(1) or Article 148-2(1)(i) of the Road Traffic Act, including a change to the number of prior breaches required, would do the same.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
8 of 8 axes matched GPT-6 Astra (OpenAI, codex CLI) · 2026-10-25
A reader from another model family (GPT-6 Astra), given the official text but not the primary reading, agreed on all 8 axes.
Raw responses and comparison record: Protocol · Blind readings (JSONL) · Axis comparison (JSONL) · SHA-256 (JSON)
Lower-court contrast & scope of application
Lower-court reading vs. Supreme Court holding
Lower-court context: The Jeju District Court, sitting on appeal, in its judgment of 28 June 2018 (2018No159), read 'a person who has breached Article 44(1) two or more times' as a person whose guilty judgment on two such breaches had become final. The defendant had one established prior offence by a final summary order of KRW 1.5 million, and the charge of 27 February 2017 was prosecuted together with the drunk driving of 2 February 2017, for which no guilty judgment had yet become final. Setting that second act aside, the court below could not apply the aggravated provision, held the charge unproven, and, having reversed the first-instance guilty verdict on its own motion, reasoned that the defendant was not guilty.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court held that even before a guilty judgment on the drunk driving of 2 February 2017 was pronounced or made final, the aggravated provision had to be applied to the act of 27 February 2017 if it was established that the defendant had already breached the ban twice when that act was committed. The court below had misread the provision, an error affecting the judgment, so the prosecutor's appeal was well founded. Because the part acquitted in the reasons had to be reversed and that charge stood in a single-offence or concurrent-offence relation with the convictions under the first clause of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, the whole guilty part was reversed and remanded, while the acquittal on the camera offence stood and the rest of the appeal was dismissed.
Distinguishing conditions
- A charge in which the prosecution's evidence does not establish even one prior breach of the drunk-driving ban, since the prior record is an element it must prove.
- A charge in which only one prior breach is established, since the provision requires two or more.
- A prior breach committed after the charged act, since the Court asked whether the defendant had already breached the ban twice at the time of the charged act.
Record verification notes
Set out every alleged prior breach with its date and the record that proves it, distinguishing final summary orders, guilty judgments and convictions prosecuted in the same trial. Test the count of two against the charged act itself, which cannot count as its own prior record. Remember that the acquittal on the camera charge was not reversed, so the file's treatment of that evidence is unchanged by this decision.
From the official text
Points at issue
도로교통법 제148조의2 제1항 제1호의 취지 및 위 조항 중 ‘제44조 제1항을 2회 이상 위반한 사람’의 의미(=2회 이상 음주운전 금지규정을 위반하여 음주운전을 하였던 사실이 인정되는 사람) / 위 조항을 적용할 때 음주운전 금지규정 위반자의 위반전력 유무와 그 횟수를 심리·판단하는 방법 및 그에 대한 증명책임 소재(=검사)
Unofficial English translation
The purport of Article 148-2 (1) subparagraph 1 of the Road Traffic Act and the meaning of 'a person who has violated Article 44 (1) two or more times' in the above provision (= a person who is found to have driven a vehicle under the influence of alcohol in violation of the provision prohibiting driving under the influence of alcohol two or more times) / The method of hearing and determining whether and how many times a violator of the provision prohibiting driving under the influence of alcohol has a prior record of violations when applying the above provision, and who bears the burden of proof therefor (= the prosecutor)
Summary of the holding
도로교통법(이하 ‘법’이라 한다) 제44조 제1항은 술에 취한 상태에서 자동차 등의 운전을 금지하고, 법 제148조의2 제1항 제1호는 ‘제44조 제1항을 2회 이상 위반한 사람’으로서 다시 같은 조 제1항을 위반하여 술에 취한 상태에서 자동차 등을 운전한 사람을 1년 이상 3년 이하의 징역이나 500만 원 이상 1천만 원 이하의 벌금에 처한다고 정하고 있다. 법 제148조의2 제1항 제1호는 행위주체를 단순히 2회 이상 음주운전 금지규정을 위반한 사람으로 정하고 있고, 이러한 음주운전 금지규정 위반으로 형을 선고받거나 유죄의 확정판결을 받은 경우 등으로 한정하고 있지 않다. 이것은 음주운전 금지규정을 반복적으로 위반하는 사람의 반규범적 속성, 즉 교통법규에 대한 준법정신이나 안전의식의 현저한 부족 등을 양형에 반영하여 반복된 음주운전에 대한 처벌을 강화하고, 음주운전으로 발생할 국민의 생명·신체에 대한 위험을 예방하며 교통질서를 확립하기 위한 것으로 볼 수 있다. 위와 같은 법 제148조의2 제1항 제1호의 문언 내용과 입법 취지 등을 종합하면, 위 조항 중 ‘제44조 제1항을 2회 이상 위반한 사람’은 문언 그대로 2회 이상 음주운전 금지규정을 위반하여 음주운전을 하였던 사실이 인정되는 사람으로 해석해야 하고, 그에 대한 형의 선고나 유죄의 확정판결 등이 있어야만 하는 것은 아니다. 법 제148조의2 제1항 제1호를 적용할 때 위와 같은 음주운전 금지규정 위반자의 위반전력 유무와 그 횟수는 법원이 관련 증거를 토대로 자유심증에 따라 심리·판단해야 한다. 다만 이는 공소가 제기된 범죄의 구성요건을 이루는 사실이므로, 그 증명책임은 검사에게 있다.
Order
원심판결 중 유죄 부분과 2017. 2. 27. 도로교통법 위반(음주운전) 무죄 부분을 파기하고, 이 부분 사건을 제주지방법원에 환송한다. 나머지 상고를 기각한다.
Unofficial English translation
The guilty part of the judgment of the court below and the not guilty part with respect to the violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving under the influence of alcohol) on February 27, 2017 are reversed, and the case as to this part is remanded to the Jeju District Court. The remaining final appeal is dismissed.
Provisions referred to
도로교통법 제44조 제1항, 제148조의2 제1항 제1호, 형사소송법 제308조
Read 2026-10-25 · Cross-read 2026-10-25. All quotes matched against the official text. The Chinese-character placeholders the court used for anonymised parties are given in their Korean readings, and parenthetical Chinese-character glosses are omitted.
Every entry is published only after all quotes have been matched character by character against the official text, and audited by an independent second reading from a different model family across all eight axes. Both agreed axes and text-grounded interpretive divergences are recorded openly. The ledger is a research record, not an assessment of the court or advice on any matter.
Back to the ledger