The Supreme Court has ruled that a driver who injured another person by backing his car into that person during a parking dispute cannot automatically be convicted of aggravated assault, saying the vehicle is hard to classify as a "dangerous object" under the charge given its speed and the force of the impact.
According to legal sources on the 24th, the first division of the Supreme Court, with Justice Chun Dae-yup presiding, recently overturned a lower court ruling that had sentenced a defendant identified as A to six months in prison, suspended for one year, on a charge of aggravated assault. The court sent the case back to the Uijeongbu District Court.
A was indicted on charges of backing his BMW sedan into a victim identified as B in an underground parking garage in Namyangju, Gyeonggi Province, in August 2023, after the two argued over parking. The dispute began when both tried to park in the same space. B was standing near the trunk of A's car, about 40 to 50 centimeters away from the vehicle. As A reversed, the rear bumper and other parts of the car struck B's left leg and lower back. B suffered injuries including a hip sprain that required about two weeks of treatment.
The trial and appellate courts sentenced A to six months in prison, suspended for one year, plus 120 hours of community service. They found him guilty of aggravated assault, concluding that he reversed even though he knew B was behind the vehicle. The courts held that he had either a definite intent to injure B or at least conditional intent, citing the fact that he did not brake despite the car's warning beeps and his wife's attempts to stop him from the passenger seat.
The Supreme Court took a different view. It found fault with the lower courts' conclusion that A's car qualified as a "dangerous object" under the aggravated assault statute. Whether an object falls into that category must be judged by prevailing social standards, based on whether the other party or a third person could feel their life or body was endangered when the object was used in the specific circumstances, the court said, adding that the same test applies when a car is used to harm someone.
The court noted that although A's car struck B while reversing, B did not fall or get thrown off, but was pushed back about six or seven steps, and that dashcam footage showed the vehicle moving very slowly. It also took into account that B's injuries were relatively minor, requiring only outpatient care rather than hospitalization. "In light of the background and circumstances of the case, the defendant's intent in reversing the vehicle and the extent of the harm, it does not appear that the victim or a third party would have felt their life or body was endangered by the operation of the vehicle," the court said. "It is difficult to conclude that this constitutes aggravated assault involving the use of a dangerous object."
