A five-year prison term for the driver in last July's so-called "City Hall Station wrong-way crash," which left 9 dead and 5 injured in downtown Seoul, was finalized on the 4th. The Supreme Court affirmed the sentence set by the appellate court, saying the cause was not sudden unintended acceleration but the driver's pedal misoperation.
The Supreme Court's Second Division (Presiding Justice Kwon Young-jun) on the 4th rejected appeals by both Cha, 69, and prosecutors in the final appeal of a case indicting Cha for violating the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents, and affirmed the lower court's ruling sentencing Cha to five years in prison. The court said there was no error in the lower court's understanding of the facts or misapprehension of the law.
The crash occurred at about 9:26 p.m. on July 1 last year on a one-way street near City Hall Station in Jung-gu, Seoul. After driving out of a hotel's underground parking lot, Cha drove the wrong way down the one-way street, collided successively with other cars, and then swerved onto the sidewalk and a crosswalk. Nine people, including pedestrians, were killed and five were injured, for a total of 14 casualties.
Throughout the investigation and trial, Cha claimed sudden unintended acceleration, saying the car accelerated on its own for no reason. But the first and second-instance courts did not accept this, concluding based on dashcam footage and the vehicle data recorder analysis that there were almost no signs of braking and that the accelerator pedal appeared to have been continuously pressed. The court said expert assessments, including by the National Forensic Service, likewise found no signs of sudden unintended acceleration and indicated a high likelihood of pedal misoperation.
In February this year, the Seoul Central District Court Criminal Division 1 Single-Judge Panel found Cha guilty of violating the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents (including causing death). The bench treated the outcomes for the 9 deceased victims and 5 injured victims as separate crimes and, handling them as a form of "real concurrence," sentenced Cha to 7 years and 6 months in prison. Real concurrence, simply put, means the punishment increases to reflect that multiple wrongs were committed.
The appellate court took a different view. The Seoul Central District Court Criminal Appellate Division 5-1 in August said the case stemmed from a single negligent act in which the defendant mistook the accelerator for the brake, and it treated the wrong-way driving, chain collisions, and charge onto the sidewalk as a series of accidents.
The appellate court therefore viewed the case as "ideal concurrence," not "real concurrence." Ideal concurrence is when multiple offenses arise from a single act, and in setting the sentence, only the most serious offense is used as the benchmark. Compared with real concurrence, which adds up multiple offenses, the sentence can be lower. The appellate court instead reflected the gravity of the outcome and imposed the statutory maximum prison term of five years under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents.
On the issue of sudden unintended acceleration, the Supreme Court first rejected Cha's argument, saying the lower courts' determination—based on the totality of the evidence—that the cause was pedal misoperation was acceptable under logic and common experience. The implication is there is no need to reexamine potential vehicle defects.
The court also found no legal error in the appellate court's application of ideal concurrence, saying the wrong-way driving, chain collisions, and deaths and injuries to pedestrians all arose from the same negligent act. Because a single mistaken pedal operation produced consecutive harm, it was proper to set the sentence based on the most serious offense.
On sentencing, the Supreme Court said it was hard to find that the appellate ruling imposing five years in prison exceeded the bounds of discretion, given that 9 people died and 5 were injured due to occupational negligence and that restitution to victims was insufficient. It also did not accept prosecutors' contention that the sentence was too light.
The ruling comes amid a string of pedal misoperation crashes involving older drivers. The government recently gave notice of legislation to require installation of a "pedal misoperation prevention device" on new passenger cars starting in 2029 to prevent rapid acceleration crashes caused by pedal misoperation.