2. According to the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor, the Defendant: (a) driven the said vehicle while drinking around 19:40 on June 9, 2015 and operated G; (b) thereafter, the Defendant was assaulted by G as a vision between the Defendant and G.

A first report to the police, the G re-report the Defendant to the police due to drinking driving, and the subsequent report the Defendant to the police, the Defendant shall go through H E E E E soft, and 500ml foot.

The police conducted a measurement of alcohol level of the Defendant’s blood alcohol level of 0.18% on the same day after being called to the scene; the police conducted a measurement of alcohol level of 21:50 on the same day; the police conducted a measurement of alcohol level of 0.118% on the blood; the police conducted a measurement of alcohol level of 0.043% on the basis that the Defendant dmark 1,000 on the blood level of 0.0% after driving of the instant case; the Defendant applied the dmark acquisition related to 58.7km in the body of the Defendant; the Defendant calculated the alcohol level of 0.0471% on the blood level of 0.18% after driving of the instant case; and the Defendant’s blood concentration of 07.09% on the basis that the Defendant dmark model applied the above Dmark acquisition rate of 0.86% on the body of the Defendant at the time of driving of the instant case.

However, there is no evidence that the above dmark acceptance 0.86 applied by the police in using the above dmark formula in light of the defendant's physical condition, etc. among the reliable statistical data already known to the police, see the above dmark takeover related to the defendant's body and the above 0.86, which is the most favorable to the defendant in this case, see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Do5531 Decided August 21, 2008.