Therefore, the Defendant appealed to the lower court on the grounds of misunderstanding of the legal principles and misunderstanding of the sentencing, and misunderstanding of the judgment, and misunderstanding of the road traffic law (driving) among the facts charged against the Defendant, on the ground that the Defendant’s violation of the traffic law (driving of alcohol) was deprived of an opportunity to measure alcohol level during blood transfusion due to pulmonary measurement, based on blood sampling, and the Defendant’s measurement result cannot be recognized as the probative value of alcohol level during blood transfusion as at the time of the accident calculated in accordance with the above dmark formula, and thus, constitutes a case where there is no proof of criminal facts. As to the violation of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents, the Defendant rendered a judgment dismissing the prosecution pursuant to Article 327 subparag. 2 of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground that the violation of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents constitutes a crime falling under the main sentence of Article 3(2) of the same Act and thus, cannot be prosecuted on the ground that the procedure of prosecution

Accordingly, the prosecutor appealed against the judgment of the court below. The Supreme Court accepted the prosecutor's appeal on the portion not guilty of the judgment prior to the remand, and the police officer failed to inform the driver that the result would be likely to exceed the standard amount of punishment for driving under the influence of alcohol when calculating the level of alcohol in the blood at the time of driving by means of blood sampling method after the breath measurement, or the driver did not inform the driver that the result would exceed the standard amount of punishment for driving under the influence of alcohol when calculating the level of alcohol in the blood at the time of driving by means of reverse dmark formula

The probative value of the blood alcohol concentration measurement conducted by the Defendant cannot be denied, and the probative value is denied.