![The scene of the chain-collision crash in Sillim-dong, Gwanak-gu, Seoul, in April 2023. [Gwanak Fire Station]](https://wimg.heraldcorp.com/news/cms/2026/07/30/news-p.v1.20260729.59c95f812c79482ab5d9fdff34751b4f_P1.png)
A taxi driver in his 70s has been convicted in connection with a chain-collision crash in Sillim-dong, Gwanak-gu, Seoul, that killed one pedestrian and injured nine others. The driver claimed the incident was caused by sudden unintended acceleration, but courts rejected the argument, finding it more likely he had mistaken the accelerator for the brake.
According to legal sources, Criminal Division 4-2 of the Seoul Central District Court overturned the first-instance sentence on appeal and on June 18 sentenced the defendant, identified only as A, to one year and six months in prison, suspended for two years, on charges including causing death and injury under the Act on Special Cases Concerning Traffic Accidents. The first trial had handed down an unsuspended prison term, but the appeals court reduced the sentence to a suspended one, citing A's additional settlements with victims.
According to facts established by the courts, A was driving in April 2023 when he exited an alley near Sillim-dong in Gwanak-gu and suddenly accelerated onto a residential road. The stretch was a no-straight-through zone with a speed limit of 30 kilometers per hour, but A drove straight through at 100 km/h. He struck two pedestrians before ramming into four vehicles in succession. One pedestrian died, and nine others — including other drivers — were seriously injured.
Throughout the investigation and trial, A maintained his innocence. His defense argued the crash was an unavoidable sudden-acceleration incident caused by a brake malfunction and that he bore no fault.
The courts, however, rejected A's claims.
The first trial found A guilty in April last year and sentenced him to one year and six months in prison.
The court said that according to forensic analysis by the National Forensic Service, the vehicle's braking and deceleration systems were most likely functioning normally at the time of the crash. Data extracted from the vehicle's event data recorder indicated that A had been operating the accelerator without engaging the brake pedal when the collision occurred.
The court added that taking into account multiple pieces of evidence — including the vehicle's rear brake lights, closed-circuit television footage and dashcam video — it appeared highly probable that A had mistakenly pressed the accelerator believing it to be the brake.
The court went on to say that while A had a long driving career, cases of experienced drivers confusing the accelerator and brake pedals were not uncommon. It noted particularly that the electric vehicle A was driving could be operated using only the accelerator pedal for both acceleration and deceleration, making pedal confusion a possibility that could not be ruled out.
On sentencing, the court said the degree of negligence was not minor and the consequences were extremely grave, adding that the bereaved family of the victim who died in the crash had likely suffered severe emotional distress.
A appealed. The appeals court upheld the guilty verdict but reduced the sentence from an unsuspended prison term to a suspended one.
The appeals court also found that the crash appeared to have resulted from A speeding through negligence or failing to apply the brakes in time after accelerating, and said there was no basis to conclude that sudden unintended acceleration had occurred or that the braking system was defective.
A's defense pointed to exclamations such as "Oh" and "Ow" recorded on the dashcam audio, along with vehicle warning sounds, as evidence that the car was moving contrary to A's intentions at the time of the crash. The court rejected this, saying expressions of surprise could equally arise from mistakenly pressing the accelerator instead of the brake and were not exclusive to a vehicle malfunction.
On sentencing, the appeals court noted that additional settlements had been reached with six victims during the appeals process, and that A had deposited 20 million won ($13,800), 1 million won and 4 million won into court escrow for the three victims with whom no settlement had been reached. Taking these factors into account, the court said the first-instance sentence was somewhat heavy.
The ruling is now final.
notstrong@heraldcorp.com
