A. In fact, the Defendant was found not guilty of the charge of traffic accident while under the influence of alcohol level 0.285% according to the blood collection measurement, and the Defendant was found not guilty of the charge of traffic accident while under the influence of alcohol level 0.285% due to the blood collection measurement.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The lower court rejected the Defendant’s final drinking time at 19:20, and the Defendant’s final drinking time at 20:35 minutes, which led to traffic accidents while driving from around February 27, 2017 to around 19:4, measured at 0.123% of alcohol concentration in blood due to respiratory measurement at around 20:04, and was measured at the Defendant’s request at around 20:35, and measured at 0.285% of alcohol concentration in blood. The Defendant’s final drinking time at 19:20, and at 20:35, the possibility that alcohol concentration in blood could not be ruled out due to the lapse of 90 minutes from the final drinking time, and that the blood collection at 20:35 minutes from the end of driving may have an interval of about 48 minutes from the end of driving, and thus, was subject to punishment at an excessive interval of time from driving.

Unless there are special circumstances, although blood collection measurement values are more accurate than the pulmonary measurement values, it is reasonable for the lower court to have determined that the blood collection measurement value is more accurate than the pulmonary measurement values, trust in which case the pulmonary measurement values are different from the pulmonary measurement values is a matter of the selection of evidence by the judge’s free evaluation of evidence.

Therefore, we cannot accept the prosecutor's assertion of mistake.

B. Sentencing unfair Defendant is driving a drinking and also driving a traffic accident.