Hello, I am Attorney Kim Kwang-sik from Cheongchul Law Firm.

Recently, our society has been demanding very strict standards regarding accidents caused not only by drugs but also by the use of psychoactive drugs and even by driving after taking everyday prescription medications. In the past, there was a strong perception that drug driving was in a blind spot compared to drunk driving, but the legislative body has made a significant overhaul of the Road Traffic Act to fill this legal gap.

In particular, the amendment to the Road Traffic Act passed in April 2025, set to take effect on April 2, 2026, includes the elevation of the penalties for drug driving and the establishment of a new offense for refusing measurement. Today, I would like to calmly address the risks that drivers may face in the changed legal environment and their legal interpretations.

[Question]

What are the differences between the amendment to the Road Traffic Act coming into effect in April 2026 compared to the previous one, and what are the key legal issues during the actual punishment process?

[Answer]

1. Legislative Change: Transition in Awareness of Drug Driving and Severity of Penalties

The previous Road Traffic Act was criticized for treating drug driving relatively lightly compared to drunk driving and for the inadequacy of enforcement systems, which diminished its effectiveness. The existing legislation prescribed imprisonment of up to three years or a fine not exceeding 10 million won for drug driving, which was pointed out as an imbalance compared to the punishment levels for the high-risk behavior of drunk driving.

The core of this amendment is to rectify this imbalance and elevate drug driving to a serious traffic crime. From the effective date of April 2, 2026, the penalties will be significantly increased to imprisonment of up to five years or a fine not exceeding 20 million won. This indicates that the authorities have started to regard drug driving as a deliberate risk behavior that directly threatens the lives of others, rather than just a simple act of negligence. In addition, cases that previously could result in merely a suspension of the license when caught are now subject to mandatory cancellation (mandatory license cancellation), thereby significantly increasing the severity of administrative sanctions.

2.  Legal Interpretation: Ambiguity and Definition of 'State of Not Being Able to Drive Normally'

One of the most contentious issues regarding the establishment of drug driving is the concept of 'state of not being able to drive normally.' Drunk driving has a clear numerical value measured by blood alcohol concentration, but due to the vast range of drugs and varying metabolic rates among individuals, it is difficult to apply quantified standards.

From a legal perspective, merely detecting drug components in the body does not definitively prove guilt. The Supreme Court has considered the driver's external condition—such as instability in walking, unnatural behavior, and the degree of eye redness—to make this judgment. Particularly, under the 2026 amendment system, the subjective judgment of the police officer will be the starting point for enforcement, so the results of the 'behavior evaluation' conducted on-site are likely to become key evidence determining guilt or innocence at trial. Therefore, even if a legal prescription drug has been taken, the key to the argument will be how to legally demonstrate the actual impact of that drug on cognitive function and motor ability.

3.  New Criminal Risks: Establishment of the Offense of Refusing Drug Measurement and Its Impact

The most noteworthy change in this amendment is the establishment of the 'offense of refusing drug measurement.' In the past, there was a lack of grounds to mandate on-site measurements to confirm drug ingestion, leading to difficulties in investigations; however, now failing to comply with a legitimate measurement request from a police officer constitutes a separate offense.

This provision will become a powerful control measure in that punishment can occur solely for 'the act of refusing measurement,' regardless of whether actual drug ingestion took place. If a driver is unable to cooperate with the measurement due to a physical illness or extreme embarrassment, and law enforcement interprets this as 'intentional evasion,' there is a risk of unjust criminal punishment. Therefore, it is essential to strictly examine whether there was 'substantial reason' at the time of the measurement request and whether the driver's rights of defense were properly communicated procedurally.

4. Conclusion

The changes in legislation regarding drug driving indicate that the level of social consensus on traffic safety has risen beyond simple punishment enhancement. Particularly, the amendment set to take effect in 2026 presents strong standards in enforcement methods and penalty levels.

Therefore, drivers who require long-term medication due to chronic illnesses should practically prepare by accurately confirming the potential effects of the medications on their driving abilities in advance, possibly through consulting with medical personnel. If you inadvertently become involved in related charges, a calm analysis of the circumstances and legal requirements, rather than an emotional response, is the most prudent way to respond as a lawyer.

Cheongchul Law Firm always strives to alleviate the vague anxieties that clients may face amidst changing legal terrains with clear legal interpretations. If you find yourself in legal difficulties, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Cheongchul Law Firm is composed solely of lawyers from the five largest law firms in the country, prosecutors' offices, and in-house legal teams of large companies, and instead of a single lawyer, a team of specialized lawyers relevant to a case is assembled to respond. Cheongchul provides comprehensive solutions beyond merely resolving specific issues, focusing on achieving the desired outcomes for clients. If you need assistance in achieving your goals, please feel free to reach out to Cheongchul.