DUI in Korea for Foreigners

Written by Attorney Soobin You, a former prosecutor licensed in Korea, defending criminal cases with consultations available in English.

Quick answer: In Korea, drinking and driving becomes a criminal offence at a blood alcohol concentration of 0.03 percent, not 0.05 or 0.08. Article 148-2 of the Road Traffic Act sets three different penalty brackets by concentration, a separate and heavier bracket for refusing a breath test, and a heavier bracket again for a repeat violation within ten years. A separate administrative decision by the police decides what happens to the driving licence. If someone was injured, the case can leave the Road Traffic Act altogether and be charged under the Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Specific Crimes. For a foreign national, the sentence type also matters beyond the criminal case itself, because immigration law treats a fine and an imprisonment-type sentence differently.

Most foreign drivers who are stopped in Korea learn the number on the device before they learn anything else, and then spend the night trying to work out what that number means. The number decides the bracket, but the bracket is only one of four separate things now running at the same time: the criminal case, the driving licence, any injury that was caused, and, for a foreign national, the effect the outcome may have on their stay. This guide sets out what the law says for each of them.

What Korean law says about drinking and driving

The threshold is 0.03 percent

Article 44(1) of the Road Traffic Act states that no person may drive a motor vehicle, tram or bicycle while under the influence of alcohol. Article 44(4) then defines what that means: a driver is under the influence when their blood alcohol concentration is 0.03 percent or higher.

This is lower than the limit many foreign residents are used to. A driver who would be under the limit in their home country can be over it in Korea. There is no warning tier beneath 0.03 percent, and no bracket that treats a first offence at a low reading as a non-criminal matter.

Article 148-2(3): a first violation, by concentration

Where a driver violates Article 44(1) and does not fall under the repeat-violation or test-refusal provisions, Article 148-2(3) divides the penalty into three brackets. They are separate brackets with separate figures, and it is worth reading them as three distinct offences rather than one sliding scale:

0.2 percent or higher — imprisonment of not less than 2 years and not more than 5 years, or a fine of not less than 10 million won and not more than 20 million won.
0.08 percent or higher but below 0.2 percent — imprisonment of not less than 1 year and not more than 2 years, or a fine of not less than 5 million won and not more than 10 million won.
0.03 percent or higher but below 0.08 percent — imprisonment of not more than 1 year, or a fine of not more than 5 million won.

Two things follow from the structure. First, each of the upper two brackets has a statutory minimum, both for imprisonment and for the fine, so the room a court has is narrower than in the lowest bracket. Second, the difference between 0.079 and 0.08 percent is not a difference of degree. It moves the case into a different provision with a different floor.

Article 148-2(2): refusing the test is its own offence

Article 44(2) provides that a police officer may test a driver for alcohol by a breath test where it is necessary for traffic safety, and that the driver must comply with that test. Refusing is not a way of avoiding the concentration brackets. It is a separate offence under Article 148-2(2), punishable by imprisonment of not less than 1 year and not more than 5 years, or a fine of not less than 5 million won and not more than 20 million won.

Read against the brackets above, that penalty sits higher than every first-violation bracket except the top one. A driver who assumes that declining the device leaves the police with nothing has usually moved their case into a heavier provision, not out of one. Article 44(3) separately allows a driver who disputes a breath result to ask for re-measurement by blood test with their consent, which is a different thing from refusing the test in the first place.

Article 148-2(1): a repeat violation within ten years

Article 148-2(1) applies where a person who has violated Article 44(1) or (2) violates the drinking provision again within ten years. Again the figures are set out separately rather than as a single uplift:

A repeat violation of the testing provisions — imprisonment of not less than 1 year and not more than 6 years, or a fine of not less than 5 million won and not more than 30 million won.
A repeat violation at 0.2 percent or higher — imprisonment of not less than 2 years and not more than 6 years, or a fine of not less than 10 million won and not more than 30 million won.
A repeat violation at 0.03 percent or higher but below 0.2 percent — imprisonment of not less than 1 year and not more than 5 years, or a fine of not less than 5 million won and not more than 20 million won.

The practical point for a foreign resident is the ten-year window. A first case that was closed years ago with a fine, and that felt finished at the time, is still capable of moving a later case into this provision.

If someone was injured: a different statute

Where a driver causes injury or death while unable to drive normally because of alcohol or drugs, the case is not charged under the Road Traffic Act brackets at all. Article 5-11(1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Specific Crimes applies: causing injury is punishable by imprisonment of not less than 1 year and not more than 15 years, or a fine of not less than 10 million won and not more than 30 million won, and causing death by imprisonment for life or for not less than 3 years.

This is the single largest step change in a drinking-and-driving case in Korea. It is also why the first question a defence lawyer asks is rarely about the reading. It is whether anyone was hurt.

Not sure which bracket your reading falls into?Send us the reading on the police record, whether it was a breath or a blood test, and whether there was an accident. We will tell you which provision applies to your case and what the realistic range is. Tell us about your case.

What happens in practice after the stop

The criminal case and the licence decision run on separate tracks, handled by different bodies, on different timetables. Confusing the two is the most common reason a driver believes their case is over when it is not.

The criminal track

A roadside breath reading is normally recorded on the spot, and a driver who disputes it may ask for a blood test under Article 44(3). The matter then goes to a police investigation, in which the driver is questioned and a written record of the statement is produced, and from there to the prosecution, which decides how the case is disposed of. A case in the lowest bracket is frequently resolved by summary order for a fine without a courtroom hearing, but that is a disposition, not an entitlement, and it is not available in the same way once the case sits in a bracket with a statutory minimum.

Three procedural rights matter here, and they apply from the police stage. Under Article 180 of the Criminal Procedure Act an interpreter is used where the person does not speak Korean. Under Article 243-2 defence counsel may be present during questioning. Under Article 244-3 the right to remain silent must be given before questioning begins, and under Article 244 the record of the statement may be read and corrected before it is signed. That last one is worth taking seriously: the written record, not the conversation, is what the prosecutor later reads.

The licence track

The driving licence is dealt with by administrative decision, not by the criminal court. Article 93(1) of the Road Traffic Act provides that the Commissioner of a City or Provincial Police Agency may revoke a licence, or suspend its effect for up to one year, in accordance with standards prescribed by Ministry of the Interior and Safety ordinance, where one of the listed grounds applies. Violating Article 44(1), and refusing a test where there was reasonable ground to believe the driver was under the influence, are among those grounds.

Because the standards sit in a subordinate ordinance and are applied by the police agency rather than the court, the licence outcome in an individual case should not be predicted from the criminal bracket alone, and a favourable criminal disposition does not automatically carry across to it.

What this means for a foreign national

For a foreign resident there is a fourth track, and it is the one most drivers do not ask about until the criminal case is finished. The relevant point is not the fact of a conviction in the abstract. It is the type of sentence.

Article 46(1) of the Immigration Act provides that the head of a local immigration office may deport a foreign national who falls within one of the listed grounds. It is a discretionary provision, and the decision-maker is the immigration office, not the criminal court. Subparagraph 13 of that paragraph refers to a person who has been sentenced to imprisonment without labour or a heavier punishment and released.

Two consequences follow, and both need to be stated carefully rather than as a rule of thumb. A fine is not an imprisonment-type sentence, so a disposition by fine does not fall within the wording of that subparagraph — but that is a statement about one subparagraph, not about immigration outcomes generally. And a suspended sentence is still a sentence: under Article 62 of the Criminal Act a court suspends the execution of imprisonment it has imposed, and under Article 65 the sentence loses its effect only once the suspension period has passed without revocation. Whether a particular suspended sentence produces a particular residence outcome is an individual determination, and it should not be assumed in either direction.

The practical implication is about sequencing. The sentence type is decided in the criminal case. By the time a residence question is being asked, the input that drives it has usually already been fixed.

The parts of the case that are decided early

The reading and how it was taken. Whether it was a breath or a blood measurement, and whether re-measurement was requested under Article 44(3), is fixed on the night and cannot be reconstructed later.
Whether anyone was injured. This determines whether the case stays within the Road Traffic Act brackets or moves to Article 5-11 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Specific Crimes.
The written statement. What the police record says the driver admitted, including about how much and when, follows the case to the prosecutor.
Any prior violation. A previous drinking or test-refusal violation within ten years changes which provision applies, so it should be identified at the outset rather than discovered later.
The sentence type sought. Whether the realistic target is a fine or an imprisonment-type disposition is the point at which the residence question is effectively decided for a foreign national.

When a lawyer becomes useful

Not every case needs representation from the first day. A single low-bracket reading with no accident, no prior violation and no dispute about the measurement is a narrow case, and a driver is entitled to handle it themselves.

Representation tends to change the outcome where the case is not narrow: where the reading sits near a bracket boundary, where the measurement itself is disputed, where there was an accident, where there is a violation within the last ten years, or where the person holds a visa status that a particular sentence type would put in question. In those situations the useful moment is before the police interview, because that is when the record everything later rests on is created.

Frequently asked questions

Is 0.03 percent really the limit in Korea?

Yes. Article 44(4) of the Road Traffic Act defines being under the influence as a blood alcohol concentration of 0.03 percent or higher. There is no lower non-criminal tier beneath it.

Can I refuse the breath test and ask for a blood test instead?

Those are two different things. Article 44(2) requires a driver to comply with a police breath test, and refusing it is a separate offence under Article 148-2(2). Article 44(3) allows a driver who disputes the breath result to be re-measured by blood test with their consent, which happens after the breath test, not instead of it.

Will a drinking and driving case end my visa?

It is not automatic, and it is not decided by the criminal court. Article 46(1) of the Immigration Act is a discretionary provision applied by the immigration office, and subparagraph 13 turns on having been sentenced to imprisonment without labour or heavier and released. A fine does not meet that wording. Beyond that, the outcome is an individual determination and should not be assumed from the sentence alone.

My earlier case was several years ago. Does it still count?

For the repeat-violation provision in Article 148-2(1), the window is ten years from the earlier violation. A closed case within that window can still change which provision applies to a new one.

Do I need to speak Korean to be interviewed?

No. Article 180 of the Criminal Procedure Act provides for an interpreter where the person does not speak Korean, and Article 243-2 allows defence counsel to be present during questioning.

Is the licence decision part of the court case?

No. Under Article 93(1) of the Road Traffic Act it is an administrative decision by the City or Provincial Police Agency Commissioner, made under standards set by Ministry ordinance, and it runs separately from the criminal case.

The specific questions, answered separately

This guide covers the drinking and driving offence itself. The questions people ask around it, including the licence side and what a foreign licence is worth, have their own answers.

The full set sits in the traffic and driving answers section.

DUI in Korea: What a Foreign Driver Is Actually Facing