A driver who had been drinking called a substitute driver to get home, then died after waking up, opening the door, and falling, not knowing the car was stored in a mechanical parking system at an officetel. As a result, the building manager's fine of 10 million won was finalized.
According to legal sources on the 7th, the Supreme Court's Second Division (Presiding Justice Kwon Young-jun) on July 16 upheld a lower court ruling that fined officetel manager A 10 million won and resident B 5 million won, after indicting them on charges of occupational negligence resulting in death.
The accident occurred on Jan. 16, 2023. C, who lived in an officetel in Busanjin District, Busan, returned home after dinner by calling a substitute driver. At C's request, the substitute driver parked the car on top of the lift of the officetel's mechanical parking system and got out. A fell asleep in the back seat after paying the substitute driving fee.
B, while trying to park a personal vehicle, found that A's car was parked inside the mechanical parking system. B checked the inside of the vehicle but did not find A, went to the security office, said, "There's only a car and no person, so I'll raise it," and then stored the vehicle. Security guard D did not check the scene and let B store it. A's vehicle was stored inside the mechanical parking system at a height equivalent to the 15th floor of an apartment.
About an hour after the vehicle was stored, C woke up. Unaware that the car was in the mechanical parking system, C opened the door to get out, fell, and died the following afternoon.
Prosecutors brought manager A, resident B, and security guard D to trial. For A, charges included failing to supervise the security guard to properly check whether someone was in the vehicle and failing to educate residents on the safe use of the mechanical parking system.
In the first trial, the court sentenced A and D to 10 months in prison, suspended for two years, and fined B 10 million won. The first-instance panel said, "Even if it was nighttime at the time and the victim's car had heavily tinted windows so the back seat could not be checked, B could have knocked on the car door or called the victim's phone number to verify before storing it," adding, "There was negligence in violating the duty of care of an ordinary person."
Security guard D gave up the appeal. In the second trial, the court fined A 10 million won and B 5 million won. The appellate panel said, "The degree of the defendants' breach of duty of care does not appear severe," and "The victim also appears to bear considerable responsibility for the occurrence of the accident." The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, saying there was no error in the lower court's judgment.