The cream bread father case is still ongoing as the 37-year-old Huh goes to trial. Huh has been charged for driving under the influence (DUI) and has also been accused of the infamous hit-and-run.
As a refresher, the "cream bread father case" refers to a hit-and-run accident that occurred back on January 10. The victim was a 29-year-old Kang, who, according to reports, was walking home after buying a bag of cream bread for his pregnant wife before a car hit him and fled the scene.
Huh turned himself in as the culprit on January 29 and admitted that he was drinking and driving, but because he was so intoxicated, he was unaware that he had hit Kang. The police quoted him saying, "Although I knew I had an accident, I didn't know I hit a person." Later, Huh retracted his statement saying, "I knew that [I hit] a person, but because I was scared, I ran away."
During Huh's second trial on April 8, Huh changed his story once again when he stated in court, "I did drink alcohol but I did not get drunk."
Huh's side called upon two of Huh's colleagues who drank with Huh that night as witnesses to further back up Huh's statement. According to the witnesses, they enjoyed a drinking party starting from 5PM until midnight with Huh. Together, they drank 4-5 bottles of soju at a samgyeopsal restaurant and 2 more bottles of soju later at a sushi restaurant. After enjoying sushi, the three went to a karaoke bar where they were joined by more colleagues. However, the witnesses claim that at this point, because the party began drinking beer, which Huh disliked, Huh refrained from drinking and instead consumed a lot of water and snacks.
Huh's witnesses stated, "When we parted, Huh wasn't drunk and he didn't stumble. Whenever he drinks, he would usually call a chauffeur service," implying that Huh was sober enough to be able to drive himself.
This, again, conflicts with Huh's statements that 1) he was intoxicated the night of the incident and that 2) he drank four bottles of soju by himself. Despite these contradictions, Huh's side has commented that prosecution cannot prove that Huh committed a DUI. Although police used the Widmark method of estimating Huh's blood alcohol content (BAC) from January 10 to be 0.260%, Huh's side argued that it would be difficult to determine Huh's BAC accurately and found the police's results to be suspicious.
Prosecution has reason to find Huh to be even more suspicious, however, as Huh's colleagues also revealed that Huh lied to them about his car after the accident. Although Huh had told them that he was getting his car fixed at a repair shop, he was found to have been personally repairing his car at his parent's home, hiding evidence of the accident from those around him.
SEE ALSO: The Hipster Districts you can visit around Seoul
As a refresher, the "cream bread father case" refers to a hit-and-run accident that occurred back on January 10. The victim was a 29-year-old Kang, who, according to reports, was walking home after buying a bag of cream bread for his pregnant wife before a car hit him and fled the scene.
Huh turned himself in as the culprit on January 29 and admitted that he was drinking and driving, but because he was so intoxicated, he was unaware that he had hit Kang. The police quoted him saying, "Although I knew I had an accident, I didn't know I hit a person." Later, Huh retracted his statement saying, "I knew that [I hit] a person, but because I was scared, I ran away."
During Huh's second trial on April 8, Huh changed his story once again when he stated in court, "I did drink alcohol but I did not get drunk."
Huh's side called upon two of Huh's colleagues who drank with Huh that night as witnesses to further back up Huh's statement. According to the witnesses, they enjoyed a drinking party starting from 5PM until midnight with Huh. Together, they drank 4-5 bottles of soju at a samgyeopsal restaurant and 2 more bottles of soju later at a sushi restaurant. After enjoying sushi, the three went to a karaoke bar where they were joined by more colleagues. However, the witnesses claim that at this point, because the party began drinking beer, which Huh disliked, Huh refrained from drinking and instead consumed a lot of water and snacks.
Huh's witnesses stated, "When we parted, Huh wasn't drunk and he didn't stumble. Whenever he drinks, he would usually call a chauffeur service," implying that Huh was sober enough to be able to drive himself.
This, again, conflicts with Huh's statements that 1) he was intoxicated the night of the incident and that 2) he drank four bottles of soju by himself. Despite these contradictions, Huh's side has commented that prosecution cannot prove that Huh committed a DUI. Although police used the Widmark method of estimating Huh's blood alcohol content (BAC) from January 10 to be 0.260%, Huh's side argued that it would be difficult to determine Huh's BAC accurately and found the police's results to be suspicious.
Prosecution has reason to find Huh to be even more suspicious, however, as Huh's colleagues also revealed that Huh lied to them about his car after the accident. Although Huh had told them that he was getting his car fixed at a repair shop, he was found to have been personally repairing his car at his parent's home, hiding evidence of the accident from those around him.
Huh's next trial will be held on April 22.
SHARE
SHARE
Log in to comment