도로교통법위반(사고후미조치)등
The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Jeonju District Court Panel Division.
1. Of the judgment below, the prosecutor appealed on the guilty portion among the judgment below, but did not submit the grounds for objection.
2. We examine the grounds of appeal as to the acquittal portion of the judgment below.
In a situation where it is impossible to determine whether the blood alcohol concentration at the time of driving under the influence of alcohol is an increase in the blood alcohol concentration or at the time of summer, even if the blood alcohol concentration measured at the time when a considerable time has elapsed from the time when the driving was completed exceeds the penalty standard value, it cannot be readily concluded that the blood alcohol concentration at the time of actual driving exceeded the penalty standard value.
Although there are differences for each individual, it is generally known that blood alcohol concentration between 30 to 90 minutes after drinking has reached the highest level, and then 0.08 to 0.03% per hour (average approximately 0.015%) has decreased by 0.08% per hour. If the driving is completed, if the blood alcohol concentration at the time of driving is higher than the blood alcohol concentration actually measured, there is a possibility that the blood alcohol concentration at the time of driving may be lower than the blood alcohol concentration actually measured.
However, even if there exists an interval between the time of driving and the time of measuring the blood alcohol concentration and the time of driving appears to increase the blood alcohol concentration, such circumstance alone cannot be deemed insufficient to prove that the blood alcohol concentration at the time of actual driving exceeds the punishment standard.
In such cases, the issue of whether a person can be deemed to have been above the standard value of punishment even at the time of driving shall be determined reasonably in accordance with logical and empirical rules, comprehensively taking into account various circumstances acknowledged by evidence, such as the time interval between driving and measurement, the difference between the measured volume of alcohol content and the standard value of punishment, the continuous time and volume of drinking, the driver’s behavior level at the time of driving regulation and measurement, and the situation of the accident if there is a traffic accident, etc.
B. The summary of this part of the facts charged is as follows: “Defendant” on March 5, 2013.