Kim Ho-joong’s Defense: Why Ignorance is a Risky Claim

Introduction to Kim Ho-joong’s Case

Incident Overview

On the 9th of this month, singer Kim Ho-joong was involved in a hit-and-run accident with his SUV, colliding with a taxi. After the accident, he disappeared and resurfaced 17 hours later at a police station, where he admitted to the charges. During his absence, his manager falsely confessed to driving the vehicle, even wearing Kim’s clothes to support the deception. Another manager destroyed the car’s black box memory card. Kim himself was reportedly at a hotel, not at home, during this time.

Kim’s Defense

Kim Ho-joong claimed that he fled the scene not to avoid a DUI charge but because he was in a state of panic and unable to make sound decisions. He also denied any involvement in his manager’s false confession. His agency’s CEO took full responsibility, stating that it was an overprotective reaction to shield Kim.

Legal Analysis by Attorney Kim Woo-seok

Expert Commentary

Attorney Kim Woo-seok, a former chief prosecutor, offers his insights into the legal ramifications of Kim’s actions. He stresses that some defenses can be more damaging than beneficial and that legal counsel should intervene in such instances.

Implications of a Delayed Breathalyzer Test

Question: What is the significance of conducting a breathalyzer test 17 hours after the accident?

Answer: The situation raises suspicions. If Kim Ho-joong hadn’t been drinking, he could have simply reported the accident to his insurance. His decision to go to a hotel rather than home suggests he was avoiding an immediate breathalyzer test, a tactic the police will likely interpret as deliberate evasion. Additionally, Kim’s claim that he used a chauffeur service because he was tired, yet felt well enough to drive shortly after, is implausible. The video evidence showing him crossing the center line further raises doubts about his sobriety.

Potential Charges and Legal Consequences

Feasibility of DUI Charges Without Immediate Evidence

Question: Can Kim Ho-joong be prosecuted for DUI without a timely breathalyzer test?

Answer: For DUI prosecution, the blood alcohol concentration (BAC) at the time of driving must be at least 0.03%. After 17 hours, it’s challenging to determine the BAC, making prosecution difficult. However, using scientific methods, such as calculating the type and amount of alcohol consumed, the driver’s weight and gender, and the drinking timeline, it’s possible to estimate the BAC at the time of the incident. The police are expected to rigorously investigate, including analyzing CCTV footage and interviewing bar staff to determine Kim’s alcohol consumption.

Consequences for False Confession and Evidence Tampering

Question: What are the legal repercussions for false confession and evidence tampering?

Answer: These actions typically result in charges of harboring a criminal. The actual driver faces charges of instigating criminal harboring, while the false confessor faces charges of harboring a criminal. Destroying the black box memory card, a crucial piece of evidence for proving DUI and hit-and-run charges, can lead to charges of evidence tampering for both the person who destroyed it and the one who ordered its destruction. Even if Kim’s DUI is not proven, he could still face charges for instigating criminal harboring and evidence tampering.

Evaluation of Kim Ho-joong’s Defense Strategy

Skepticism from Law Enforcement

Question: Will the police believe Kim Ho-joong’s claim of ignorance regarding the false confession?

Answer: It’s unlikely. The fact that Kim’s manager wore his clothes and falsely confessed suggests that Kim was aware of and possibly orchestrated the deception. The police will find it hard to believe that Kim would give his clothes to someone going to the police without being involved in the cover-up.

Potential Outcomes

If Kim Ho-joong is found to have fled and denied his involvement without remorse, and if evidence tampering and manipulation are proven, he could face severe consequences, including possible detention. The coordinated and rapid efforts by his agency’s staff to alter and destroy evidence only strengthen suspicions of a cover-up. It is doubtful that Kim was unaware of these actions.

Conclusion and Legal Advice

Attorney Kim’s Recommendations

Attorney Kim Woo-seok advises that some arguments can backfire and cause more harm than good. In cases where eventual confession is inevitable, it is better to admit fault promptly. Delayed confessions only breed suspicion. Timely admissions can mitigate the damage and avoid unnecessary escalation of legal consequences.

Final Thoughts

The case of Kim Ho-joong highlights the complexities of legal strategy in high-profile incidents. Proper legal counsel and timely admissions are crucial in navigating such situations to minimize legal repercussions.

This analysis is based on insights from Kim Woo-seok, a prominent attorney and former chief prosecutor, and aims to shed light on the legal intricacies of the case involving singer Kim Ho-joong.

Reference: https://n.news.naver.com/mnews/article/023/0003834987?sid=102

Read More..

“Who’s Lying?” – HYBE vs. Min Hee-jin, a Clash of Rebuttals