Public Prosecutor v Kim Seung Shik

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Salina Bte Ishak
• Judgment Date: 11 September 2009
• Neutral Citation: [2009] SGDC 327
• Published date: 28 January 2014
• Court: District Court (Singapore)
• Plaintiff Counsel: Senior Station Inspector Majeed
• Defendant Counsel: Thong Chee Kun of Rajah & Tann LPP

11 September 2009

District Judge Salina Ishak:

1. The Accused, Kim Seung Shik had pleaded guilty to a charge of drink driving under Section 67(1)(b) Road Traffic Act (“DAC 31829/2009”) and a charge of inconsiderate driving under Section 65(b) Road Traffic Act (“DAC 31831/2009). The remaining charge for driving without due care and attention under Section 65(a) Road Traffic Act was taken into consideration for the purpose of sentencing. The proceeded charges are as follows:

DAC 31829/2009 (“Exhibit C1”)

1st CHARGE

You,
Kim Seung Shik, Male / 41 yrs
FIN NO: F 5563306K (D.O.B:30.07.1968)

are charged that you, on the 15th day of May 2009, at about 11.12 pm, along the carpark of No 112 East Coast Road (Katong Mall), Singapore, when driving motor car SJA 1866 M, did have so much alcohol in your body that the proportion of it in your breath, to wit, not less than 117 microgrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres of breath, exceeded the prescribed limit of 35 microgrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres of breath, and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 67(1)(b) of the Road Traffic Act, Chapter 276.

DAC 31831/2009 (“Exhibit C3”)

3rd CHARGE

You,
Kim Seung Shik, Male / 41 yrs
FIN NO: F 5563306K (D.O.B:30.07.1968)

are charged that you, on the 15th day of May 2009, at about 11.12 pm, at the junction of No 112 East Coast Road (Katong Mall) and East Coast Road, Singapore, did drive motor car SJA 1866 M, without reasonable consideration for persons using the road, to wit, when driving out from the carpark of No 112 East Coast Road (Katong Mall), did fail to give way to motor taxi SHA 2826 X which was travelling on the right of way along East Coast Road, thereby resulting in a head to side collision with motor taxi SHA 2826 X and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 65(b) of the Road Traffic Act, Chapter 276.

Summary of Facts

3. The Statement of Facts (“Exhibit P1A”) which the Accused agreed to without any qualifications reads as follows:

1. The complainant is one Cpl Kevin Koh attached to Central Police.

2. The defendant is one Kim Seung Shik, Male 41, FIN: F 5563306 K (D.O.B: 30.07.1968). He was the driver of motor car SJA 1866 M.

3. On 15^th day of May 2009 at about 11.12 pm, the defendant was driving along the carpark of No 112 East Coast Road (Katong Mall) approaching the junction of East Coast Road. While driving at the junction of East Coast Road, the defendant did drive motor car SJA 1866 M without reasonable consideration for other persons using the road, to wit, when driving out from the carpark of No 112 East Coast Road (Katong Mall), did fail to give way to motor taxi SHA2826 X which was traveling on the right of way along East Coast Road, thereby resulting in a head to side collision with the motor taxi SHA 2826 X.

4. The complainant was dispatched for this case of accident, upon talking to the defendant, he noticed that the defendant smelt strongly of alcohol. Breathalyzer test was conducted on the defendant and he failed the test. The defendant was placed under arrest for driving whilst under the influence of alcohol and he was escorted to Traffic Police Department for Breath Evidential Analyzer(BEA) test.

5. The Breath Evidential Analyser test was conducted by SSSgt Elliza Abdul Ghani on 16^th day of May 2009 at about 1.26 am at Traffic Police. The breath test revealed that the proportion of alcohol in defendant’s breath was 117 microgrammes of alcohol in every 100 millilitres of breath. The prescribed limit is 35 microgrammes of alcohol per 100 millilitres of breath.

6. Defendant has committed the offence of:-

a) Drink driving under Section 67(1) of the Road Traffic Act, Chapter 276.

b) Inconsiderate driving under Section 65(b) of the Road Traffic Act, Chapter 276.

Antecedents and Mitigation

4. The Accused has no prior antecedents.

5. In his written mitigation, Counsel had submitted that on the basis of extenuating circumstances that I impose only a fine on the Accused. The Accused is a first offender and prior to the incident, he had an unblemished record, He had decided to drive while inebriated because of a lapse of judgement due to the worry he had over for his young children at home.

Background Facts

6. The Accused is a South Korean national who is 40 years old. He graduated from Yongsei University, one of the top-ranking universities in Korea with a Bachelor of Arts majoring in public administration. He joined Ssangyong Engineering & Construction Co Ltd in 1995 and was posted to Singapore as the Deputy General Manager of Business Development in 2006, his current position.

7. The Accused is married with three sons aged 10, 13 and 14. His three sons are presently studying in Singapore. His eldest son is enrolled at the Overseas Family School and his two younger sons are enrolled in a local primary school Mayflower Primary School. His second son is presently preparing for his Primary School Leaving Examinations this year.

8. The Accused’s wife, Lee Seunghyun, was recently diagnosed with uterine cancer and after going through a biopsy in late February 2009, she was advised by her doctor in Singapore to have a hysterectomy. She decided to continue her treatment in Korea and left Singapore for Korea in April 2009, leaving the Accused to care for his young children on his own in Singapore.

9. On the night of 15^th May 2009, the Accused’s presence was required for a company event at Katong Mall. Ssangyong was successful in its tender for construction of MRT projects and in celebration of their success, Ssangyong organized a celebration for its staff members.

10. After a few drinks, the Accused excused himself from the celebrations as he was concerned about his three children who were home alone without any parental supervision. As his wife had already returned to Korea for treatment of her medical condition, his children were frequently home alone when the Accused was at work. The Accused was obligated to attend the company celebrations and only managed to excuse himself after a few drinks.

11. Unfortunately, the Accused was involved in an accident as he left the carpark of Katong Mall. As he was leaving the carpark, he turned left into a wall. He thereafter collided into the side of a motor taxi as he was driving out of the carpark. It was a minor accident with light damage to property and there was no injury suffered by any party.

The Mitigating Factors

12 Immediately after the accident with the motor taxi, the Accused immediately stopped his car and came out to render assistance. The Accused did not at any time shirk his responsibility for the mistake that he made. He had also extended his full cooperation to the police upon their arrival.

13. The Accused decided to drive while inebriated because of a lapse of judgment. He was obligated to attend the company celebrations, and only managed to excuse himself from the party after having a few drinks. He was worried about his children who were at home alone and acted in a moment of folly as he wanted to go home as quick as he could to his children.

14. The Accused understands that this momentary lapse of judgment had resulted in him behaving in an irresponsible fashion. He deeply regrets this and accepts responsibility for his actions. Counsel submitted that as his record would show, this offence is out of character and he is unlikely to re-offend.

15. The Accused is a responsible father and husband. It was the worry he had for his children at home which caused him to act in that uncharacteristic manner. Copies of a letter from the Accused’s wife and a testimonial from the Accused’s company were attached as a character references.

16. The Accused’s family is presently going through a difficult time due to the fact that his wife is suffering from uterine cancer. His wife has been unable to work and would require the Accused to be the sole breadwinner of the family as she continues her medical treatment in Korea. The Accused is also the sole care-giver to the children, a role which he was previously unaccustomed to as a result of his dedication to work. This has caused the Accused considerable stress and anxiety. In particular, the Accused’s second son needs extra attention and care as he prepares for his Primary School Leaving Examination this year.

17. Counsel urged the Court to impose a fine only on the Accused and referred to the Honourable the Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong’s observation on sentencing considerations for the offence drink driving in Chong Pit Khai v Public Prosecutor [2009] 3 SLR 423. The Accused is an employment pass holder in Singapore. He risks losing his job in Singapore if he is given a custodial sentence. This would add immense financial burden on him as the sole breadwinner of the family, in addition to the significant medical fees he has to pay for his wife’s cancer treatment in Korea. Further, if he is not allowed to remain in Singapore, his children’s lives and education in Singapore would be disrupted.

18. Counsel concluded by highlighting that the Accused is a law abiding citizen who has never broken the law. He has a clean driving record apart from this single incident.

The Sentence

19. The Accused was sentenced as follows:

DAC 31829/2009

1st Charge - 3 weeks’ imprisonment and a 2-year’ disqualification from holding or obtaining a licence for all classes with effect...