2. Determination

A. Although the Defendant alleged that he was driving alcohol while driving alcohol, it is difficult to recognize that the Defendant was driving in a state of blood alcohol concentration exceeding 0.05% since the blood alcohol measurement was conducted during the divers of alcohol level.

B. According to the evidence of judgment, the time when the Defendant was driving is confirmed by CCTV to be around 16:28, and the blood alcohol concentration was measured by the respiratory measuring instrument around 17:01 to 0.051%.

In this case, there is no evidence that the Defendant objectively proves the place of drinking, the kind and quantity of drinking, and the final time of drinking, other than the Defendant’s statement. As such, the Defendant asserted that he would finally drink alcohol at around 15:31 on the day of the instant case. If the Defendant, as alleged by the Defendant, he would finally drink alcohol at around 15:31, there is room to deem that the blood alcohol concentration at the time of measuring alcohol level was 0.051%, and it is difficult to readily conclude that the blood alcohol concentration at around 16:28, when the Defendant was driving, was 0.05% or more.

Only the evidence submitted by the prosecutor is not proved strictly that the defendant was driving in the state of blood alcohol concentration of at least 0.05%, which is the standard value for punishment.

3. Therefore, the facts charged in this case constitute a case where there is no proof of crime, and thus, a judgment of innocence is rendered pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the summary of judgment is not publicly announced pursuant to the proviso of