Court acquits SUV driver of hit-and-run after vehicle ran over 8-year-old girl's foot

A court has ruled that an SUV driver who ran over a child's foot after knocking her down in the street was not guilty of hit-and-run.

The case, tried at the Seoul Northern District Court last year on charges of violating the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents, drew renewed attention Friday.

The incident dates to Jan. 10, 2024.

An 8-year-old girl surnamed Kim was walking hand-in-hand with her grandmother through an alley in Seongbuk-gu, Seoul, when the passenger-side fender of a passing SUV struck her and knocked her to the ground. The vehicle did not stop and ran over her foot as it continued on. Kim sustained an ankle sprain and bruising requiring two weeks of treatment.

The driver parked the vehicle in a villa parking lot about 178 meters from the scene.

The girl's father said the grandmother had cried out after the car hit his daughter. "Even a small pebble hitting the car while driving makes a sound — it makes no sense to say the driver didn't know," he said.

Prosecutors charged the 72-year-old driver, identified only by the surname A, under the Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Specific Crimes for fleeing the scene after causing injury.

The court reached a different conclusion. The Seoul Northern District Court dismissed the entire case, including the hit-and-run charge, ruling that because the vehicle was covered by comprehensive insurance, the underlying traffic injury charge could not be prosecuted.

The first-instance judge said it could not be ruled out that the driver was unaware of the collision, noting that the SUV's hood stood about 120 centimeters high while the child was small and light.

The court also took into account that the vehicle showed almost no jolting after passing over the child, and accepted the defendant's claim that he had not noticed the impact.

The ruling cited an analysis by the National Forensic Service, which reviewed CCTV footage and found that while the driver's line of sight, perception and judgment suggested he "may have been able to recognize" that he had struck and run over the child, it was "impossible to objectively determine this with certainty."

The judge further noted that if the defendant had intended to flee, "he would not have driven slowly and parked less than 200 meters away."

Prosecutors have appealed the first-instance ruling. The appellate court is scheduled to deliver its verdict on Aug. 14.

[단독] 검사의 실수, 증거와 공소장에 적힌 음주운전 날짜가 다르다…대법원 파기환송[세상&]

https://biz.heraldcorp.com/article/10782302