2. The defendant and his defense counsel's assertion

A. At the time of the so-called so-called “dacting test”, the police officer at the time of the so-called “dacting test” provided only information that is subject to suspension of driver’s license without considering the Defendant’s past power to control the so-called “dacting test” due to a defect in the procedure of the so-called “dacting test.” If the Defendant had known that he had been subject to the revocation of driver’s license, he was deprived of the opportunity to object to the result of the bacting test due to the blood collection’s application for the measurement of blood alcohol concentration. As such, the police officer’s wrong notification by the so-called “dacting driver’s statement related

B. Whether the blood alcohol level is above 0.05% or not, it cannot be readily concluded that the blood alcohol level at the time of driving was above 0.05% as at the time of blood sampling by the Defendant’s blood sampling.

3. Determination

A. Article 44(2) of the Road Traffic Act provides that "When it is deemed necessary to ensure the safety of traffic and prevent danger or when there are reasonable grounds to recognize that a driver has driven a motor vehicle, etc. while under the influence of alcohol due to a defect in the procedure of a breath test, police officers may measure the breath test whether the driver is under the influence of alcohol in violation of paragraph (1). In such cases, the driver shall comply with the breath test of the police officer." And Article 44(3) of the Road Traffic Act provides that "the driver who is dissatisfied with the result of