Nancy Lang was reportedly arrested for drunk driving.

Nancy Lang was reportedly arrested for drunk driving.
Apparently, her blood alcohol level was high enough to warrant license revocation.

For reference, license suspension comes first, and revocation is the next level.

Huh? You don’t know who Nancy Lang is?

There is a woman who walks around every day with a cat sitting on her shoulder.

Let’s keep going.

Korean-American television personality and pop artist Nancy Lang was reportedly caught by police while driving under the influence of alcohol.
Point 1. Korean-American.

The Seoul Gangnam Police Station announced on the 8th that Nancy Lang had been booked on suspicion of drunk driving under the Road Traffic Act.
Nancy Lang was reportedly driving after drinking alcohol at around 3:45 a.m. that day in the area of Gangnam-daero, Gangnam-gu, Seoul, when she was

arrested by police who responded to a report.
Point 2. “Responded to a report.”

Nancy Lang’s blood alcohol concentration was reportedly at a level that would result in license revocation.
Point 3. “License revocation level.”

Nancy Lang reportedly stated in response that she had only had one or two glasses of champagne, was not heavily intoxicated, and that reports saying her blood alcohol level was at a license-revocation level were incorrect.

Alright, let’s quickly go through each point.

First Point

Korean-American

Let’s address the question that may come to mind immediately.

Would the punishment be different if an American citizen drove drunk in Korea?

No.
The principle of territorial jurisdiction means that Korean law applies to drunk driving that occurs within the territory of the Republic of Korea, regardless of the person’s nationality.

Wouldn’t there be countries that don’t recognize territorial jurisdiction?
Couldn’t such a country say,
“That’s your principle, but we don’t recognize it, so send our citizen back”?

No.
As far as I know, no such country has been identified.

However, there are cases like this.

A person who committed a crime returned to their home country before being arrested.

Afterward, the country where the crime occurred identified the suspect and attempted to arrest them,
but, as mentioned, the suspect had already returned home.

In that situation, the country where the crime occurred would presumably say, based on the principle of territorial jurisdiction,
“We will put you on trial,

so extradite the suspect back to us.”

And then the other country could respond:

“No.
We cannot extradite our own citizen to a foreign country because that would conflict with our Constitution.”

There have been cases where extradition was refused on those grounds.

One famous example is the
Alexander Litvinenko poisoned tea incident.

At the time, the United Kingdom wanted Andrei Lugovoi, the suspect, to be extradited,
but Russia said that under Article 61 of the Russian Constitution concerning the prohibition on extraditing its own citizens,
it could not send the suspect back.

Instead, Russia proposed that
if Britain provided the evidence, Russia would put him on trial in Russia.

This is not simply a case of Russia making up its own arbitrary rule.
Because there is a clear basis of protecting one’s own citizens,
it is also understandable in that context,

and similar rules can be found in many countries, including Germany and Brazil.

Then what about this situation??

“I don’t care.
You go back to your own country

and figure out whether you die or serve your sentence.
I’m not touching you.”

In other words, a country does not punish the person but instead deports them.

Yes, that happens.

In 2020, a foreign national who had entered Korea under an E-9 (non-professional employment) status was found to have imported “Rush,” a temporary controlled substance, into Korea.

At the time, Rush was classified as a temporary controlled substance in Korea.

The prosecution decided not to indict the person, and immediately afterward
issued a departure order.

The person objected to the decision and requested that the departure order be canceled,
but the request was dismissed.

There are also cases involving departure orders issued to Korean nationals.
A person had repeatedly committed crimes including bodily injury, aggravated assault, and gambling,
and had ultimately signed a pledge to comply with the law, acknowledging that severe punishment would follow if the pledge was violated.

However, after committing another crime,
a departure order was issued.

Second Point

“Responded to a report”

Can the person who reported drunk driving receive a reward?

In short,

nationwide, there is no fixed system simply saying “report drunk driving and receive this amount.”
Instead, rewards are paid after evaluating whether the 112 report contributed to an arrest or prevention of harm.

The reason I said “nationwide” is that Jeju has different standards.

If a drunk-driving report actually leads to enforcement, the reward is 100,000 won per case.

The previous differentiated rewards of 30,000 or 50,000 won based on blood alcohol concentration have been abolished, and the amount is now fixed at 100,000 won.

Up to 5 reports per person per year → maximum 500,000 won

Application must be made within one month of the report.

Applications can be made through the Jeju Police Agency or the traffic investigation division of a police station.

Got it?

So when you visit Jeju,
if you spot someone driving drunk, report it and you may even receive a reward.

Third Point

License revocation level

From here, there is much more to say.

There is a lot to discuss, including repeat offenses after probation and the so-called three-strikes system,

but since I specifically pointed out the key point,
I’m only going to talk about that.

Category	20 years ago (2006)	10 years ago (2016)	Current
License suspension	0.05% or higher ~ less than 0.10%	0.05% or higher ~ less than 0.10%	0.03% or higher ~ less than 0.08%
License revocation	0.10% or higher	0.10% or higher	0.08% or higher

The thresholds have been getting increasingly strict.

That may be a positive direction,
but I fundamentally believe that focusing on finding ways to eliminate drunk driving altogether is a better approach.

So, how much would an average person have to drink to reach a level that results in license revocation?

You can think of it as roughly four to five shots of soju.

Of course, this varies from person to person.

Alcohol metabolism,
how long it took to drink those four or five shots,
and how long afterward the person got behind the wheel
can all significantly affect the result.

In fact, it is reasonable to say that there is no meaningful fixed rule such as “drink this many shots and you will reach that level.”

Nancy Lang reportedly responded to the announcement that her blood alcohol concentration was **0.08%** by explaining that she had only had a couple of glasses of champagne.

It is possible for a couple of glasses of champagne to result in that level.

Because, from our perspective,
the kind of extreme intoxication where you think, “This person isn’t even functioning like a human anymore,”

usually starts at around 0.15% or higher.

But does that really matter?

Drunk driving is not something you can choose to do simply because you personally believe you are okay to drive.

Because the moment you get onto the road,
you could put someone else’s life at risk.

Even if you drive after having just one drink,
there is no guarantee that next time it won’t become two drinks, then three.

It should be
eliminated altogether.

I’ll finish with a phrase that is often used.

If you’re going to die, die alone.