However, considering the fact that the defendant has been driving normally for about 10 minutes in the state of drinking only half of the week, and that there is a situation where dialogue can be made, there is a high probability that the blood alcohol concentration level has been measured very high compared to the drinking volume due to any malfunction in the drinking measuring instrument used at the time.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, which found the guilty of the charges by reliance on the blood alcohol concentration.

2. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, i.e., (i) the defendant stated that he was breath of the disease at the time of breath measurement (Evidence No. 5 page of the record), (ii) the police officer who controlled breathing was breath of the disease at the time when he was investigated by the police (Evidence No. 43 page of the trial record), and reversed the above statement while he was breath of the disease at the time when she was investigated by the police (the court records No. 43), and (ii) the police officer who controlled breathing was unable to find the cell phone devices in front of breath while breathing breathly breathing, and the conversation itself was difficult. The police officer stated that he was able to take breathing measurements for 15 months until now (the court records No. 49, No. 50 pages of the trial record), (Evidence No. 5 of the circumstantial report) on the brea level of alcohol.