도로교통법위반(음주운전)
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (the factual error) was an increase in the Defendant’s blood alcohol concentration from around November 14, 2017 to around 22:37 of the same day, when the Defendant finished driving, and thus, even if the Defendant’s blood alcohol concentration was measured by 0.06% as a result of the repulmonary measurement, it cannot be readily concluded that the Defendant’s blood alcohol concentration level was above 0.05% at the time of driving.
2. The Defendant also asserted to the same effect as the grounds for appeal in this case, and the lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion and convicted the Defendant of the facts charged in this case by providing a detailed statement of the judgment below on the “a summary of evidence” under the “a summary of evidence.”
In addition to the circumstances properly explained by the court below, in full view of the following facts: (a) acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the court below; (b) the police officers discovered the Defendant’s suspicion of drunk driving on the day of the instant case; (c) the behavior and appearance observed by the Defendant at the time of detection; (d) the interval between the time of detection of drunk driving and the respiratory measurement; and (e) the Defendant’s respiratory measurement at 0.06%; and (c) the Defendant’s respiratory measurement at the time of detection; and (d) even if applying 0.05%, which is the error scope of ordinary respiratory measuring devices, the court below’s judgment is just and there is no error of law of misunderstanding the facts alleged by the Defendant.
Therefore, the defendant's assertion of mistake is without merit.
(However, as examined below, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, since the defendant's appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.