In this blog post, I’ll examine various arguments made in defense of TV personality Noh Hong-chul’s 2014 DUI incident and consider why drunk driving cannot be taken lightly simply because the distance driven was short or no accident occurred.
On November 7, 2014, at approximately 11:55 p.m., TV personality Noh Hong-chul was caught in a DUI checkpoint while driving his Mercedes-Benz Smart Fortwo Cabrio (nicknamed “Hong-car”) near the Seoul Customs Intersection in Nonhyeon-dong, Gangnam-gu, Seoul. At the time, Noh Hong-cheol’s side explained that he had parked illegally because hotel parking fees were expensive; that he had briefly left the gathering to park properly since it looked like the drinking session would run late; and that he was caught during a drunk driving check while driving about 20–30 meters to move the vehicle to another location. According to a police official, a vehicle suddenly turned into an alley near the checkpoint, and since police were already stationed in that alley, they pulled the car over for a check—only to discover that the driver was Noh Hong-chul. Police reported that after being stopped, Noh Hong-chul did not breathe properly into the breathalyzer during the initial test; he later admitted to drinking and requested a blood test instead of a second breath test. He was then transported to Seoul St. Mary’s Hospital for the blood draw and returned home around 1:40 a.m. on November 8 after the procedure was completed. A blood test commissioned to the National Forensic Service confirmed his blood alcohol concentration (BAC) at 0.105%. This exceeded the 0.1% threshold for driver’s license revocation at the time, and Mr. Noh Hong-cheol had his driver’s license revoked for one year.
He expressed his apologies for the incident and announced that he would step down from all programs—including “Infinite Challenge” and “I Live Alone,” on which he was appearing at the time—to take time for self-reflection. In response, some netizens launched a petition campaign opposing his departure, voicing their disagreement with this decision. They argue that this incident was not a major issue and that being removed from shows like “Infinite Challenge” due to drunk driving is an overreaction. However, it is a clear fact that he drove under the influence, and since he committed a wrongdoing, his decision to step down from the programs he was appearing in at the time and take time to reflect was a perfectly understandable one.
The main argument among those defending Noh Hong-chul’s drunk driving is that the offense was minor. They claim that since he only drove 20–30 meters to move an illegally parked car and did not cause an accident, it should not be considered a major issue.
However, even if he was merely driving to move the car, the risk of an accident existed, so it must be considered drunk driving. In fact, a review of case law related to drunk driving shows that the offense can be established even if the driving distance is very short. For example, the Supreme Court has ruled that drunk driving applies when part of a vehicle enters the road while the driver is intoxicated, and the Seoul Southern District Court also recognized liability for drunk driving in 2017 for an act in which a vehicle was moved by only about 30 cm. Therefore, the mere fact that the distance driven was short does not negate the essence of drunk driving. Currently, in South Korea, a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of 0.03% or higher is the threshold for punishment for drunk driving, meaning that legal standards for drunk driving have become stricter than in the past. If Mr. Noh Hong-cheol had caused an accident, the assessment of this incident would have been significantly different, and it is highly likely that there would have been far less public support for him than there is now. Therefore, the moral issue lies not in the fact that he did not cause an accident, but in the fact that he drove despite being aware that he had been drinking and recognizing the dangers involved. Of course, this cannot be judged on the same level as reckless driving under the influence, but even if there is room for extenuating circumstances, since Mr. Noh Hong-cheol himself admitted to drinking during the police investigation, he must be held morally accountable for driving while aware that he was intoxicated.
Some have argued that it might have been impractical to call a designated driver just to move the car. However, given that he could have asked an acquaintance or someone nearby to move the car but did not make such an effort, it is difficult to view his liability as significantly reduced simply because the driving was intended to relocate the vehicle.
Questions have also been raised as to whether all of Mr. Noh Hong-cheol’s explanations are factual. He initially stated that he had driven about 20 to 30 meters before being pulled over; given that distance, it was possible—depending on the circumstances at the time—that he could have been aware of the DUI checkpoint. Since it is highly unlikely that anyone would drive while intoxicated with a DUI checkpoint taking place right in front of them, the exact location where he had illegally parked and where he began driving became a point of controversy at the time. Later, during the police investigation, Mr. Noh stated that he had driven about 150 meters, explaining that he had initially estimated the distance to be around 20–30 meters at the time of his arrest, which is why he had made that statement. Therefore, it is inappropriate to judge the severity of the incident based solely on his initial claim of 20–30 meters.
Conspiracy theories have also been raised suggesting that this was a targeted investigation aimed at Mr. Noh Hong-cheol. The argument is that the incident should be viewed with some leniency because someone intentionally created the situation to catch him. At the time, there were even claims that someone had called him asking him to move his car. However, there are several problems with these claims. First, the DUI stop itself was not specifically targeted at Mr. Noh Hong-cheol but occurred as part of a routine enforcement operation. Furthermore, the police explained that a vehicle suddenly entered an alley near the DUI checkpoint, and officers stationed there stopped the vehicle. Even if someone had asked him to move his car, that fact alone does not negate the act of driving under the influence.
Some have argued, “How could he have been caught if he drove only 20 to 30 meters?” but this actually raised doubts about Mr. Noh Hong-cheol’s statement at the time. If he had driven only about 20–30 meters, as he claimed, it would have been difficult to explain the process and circumstances leading to his arrest, raising the possibility that the actual distance driven was longer. Subsequently, a police investigation confirmed that Mr. Noh Hong-cheol had stated he drove approximately 150 meters, establishing that the initially reported distance of 20–30 meters differed from the actual driving distance. At the time, there was speculation that if Mr. Noh Hong-cheol had parked illegally near the Imperial Palace Hotel, the actual driving distance could have been over 200 meters; however, without confirming the specific starting point and route taken, it is difficult to regard this as a definitive fact.
Even if this were a targeted investigation aimed at Mr. Noh Hong-cheol, that would only raise issues for those who conducted the investigation; it does not alter the fact that Mr. Noh Hong-cheol drove under the influence. However, if there were indeed illegal acts committed during the investigation, they must be judged as a separate issue, and responsibility for those acts must be distinguished from his responsibility for the act of driving under the influence itself.
Many also argued that stepping down from a TV program—which is also his workplace—simply because he drove under the influence was an excessive measure. They contended that the fact of driving under the influence and appearing on a TV program are separate issues. However, individuals in professions that involve constant public exposure, such as broadcasters, must bear a certain degree of responsibility for the impact their actions have on the public. In ‘Star: A Theory of Popular Culture Through the Lens of Stars’, Edgar Morin explains the relationship between stars and popular culture, arguing that stars exert a strong influence on the public. In particular, adolescents, whose values have not yet been firmly established, can be greatly influenced by the image of stars portrayed in the media. Therefore, if drunk driving is not portrayed as a serious offense, there is a risk that people will view the severity of the act as trivial. At the time, Mr. Noh Hong-chul was exerting considerable influence on the public through his appearances on programs such as ‘Infinite Challenge’, which were watched by many people, including teenagers. Consequently, it was entirely reasonable to argue that he should have acknowledged his mistake and shown a spirit of self-reflection.
Another argument in defense of his drunk driving is that he had generally demonstrated good conduct. In particular, they cited an incident in February 2008, when he was attacked without provocation by a man in his 20s suffering from a mental illness, sustaining broken ribs, yet forgave the assailant and declined to press charges on the grounds that the perpetrator had a mental illness. They argued that, given his kind nature, extenuating circumstances should also be considered in this drunk driving case. However, even if there were cases in which an individual’s public service activities or social contributions were considered as grounds for leniency in legal rulings at the time, it is difficult to conclude, based on just a few specific incidents, that he has consistently served as a social role model through his public service activities. Furthermore, past good deeds and current wrongdoing must be judged as separate issues. In fact, from an ethical perspective, if one believes he has demonstrated good conduct up to this point, reflecting on his actions and acknowledging his mistake regarding this drunk driving incident would be the way to maintain his positive image. His fans at the time should have also considered that continuing his broadcasting activities without acknowledging his mistake could actually damage the positive image he had built up over the years.
The law must be applied strictly and fairly. Just because he has many devoted fans, or because his removal from the show means viewers will no longer see him on TV, does not mean the responsibility for the act of drunk driving should be lessened. Furthermore, South Korea’s current drunk driving standards have been tightened since 2014, and driving under the influence is now punishable at a blood alcohol concentration of 0.03% or higher. Therefore, when evaluating the incident from that time, it is necessary to distinguish between the legal standards in effect then and those in effect today. Mr. Noh Hong-chul’s 2014 drunk driving incident should also be judged based on the fact that he got behind the wheel while intoxicated—regardless of whether the distance driven was short, whether an accident occurred, or what kind of public image he typically projected. I believe that taking sufficient time to reflect, acknowledging his mistake, and showing remorse would have been the most responsible attitude he could have demonstrated at the time.
