(1) The hours during which a measurement of drinking to the defendant was conducted has not passed 20 minutes since the last drinking time.

The time of final calculation at the main point is 10:26, and the time of measuring drinking is 10:37.

(2) At the time of repulmon control, a police officer controlling police officer did not give the defendant an opportunity to find a drafting appropriate.

③ Defendant’s demand for re-measurement was rejected without reasonable grounds.

4. The defendant did not have an opportunity to collect blood.

Control police officers did not inform the defendant that the collection of blood should be conducted within 30 minutes without informing the defendant that it should be conducted within 30 minutes, and delayed time when the defendant set up his own opinions and delayed the collection of blood. The defendant deprived the defendant of the opportunity to receive a measurement of blood collection because it was about 30 minutes later.

2. The measurement conducted to determine whether a police officer under Article 44(2) of the Road Traffic Act is under the influence of alcohol shall be understood as a measurement conducted by a respiratory measuring instrument, i.e., the method of objectively converting the degree of taking the alcohol from the body and objectively (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 9Do5210, Apr. 21, 200). Meanwhile, according to Article 44(3) of the Road Traffic Act, with respect to a driver dissatisfied with the result of a measurement as to whether a police officer is under the influence of alcohol under paragraph (2) of the same Article, the said measurement may be conducted again by means of blood collection, etc. with the consent of the driver. Thus, in a case where the driver is dissatisfied with the result of the measurement conducted by the above respiratory measuring instrument and requests a measurement by the blood collection method, the police