2. The judgment prosecutor specified the Defendant’s blood alcohol concentration by using the dymar art pattern, and prosecuted the Defendant by applying Articles 148-2(2)2 and 44(1) of the former Road Traffic Act (amended by Act No. 16037, Dec. 24, 2018) as applicable provisions of the Act.

However, around 20:10 on June 24, 2019, when the Defendant was driving (20:0) appears to have passed about 10 minutes from around 20:0 on the same day as the Defendant’s final drinking time (at around 20:0, there was no other evidence except the Defendant’s statement). It is unclear whether the Defendant’s blood alcohol concentration was risen at the time of driving. However, in light of the fact that the blood alcohol concentration increased between 30:90 and 90 minutes after the final drinking time, it is likely that the blood alcohol concentration of the Defendant was risen at the time of driving.

If the blood alcohol concentration is below the summer, the blood alcohol concentration may be calculated against the defendant by applying the reverse calculation method based on the Badmark formula, but in the case of an increase in the blood alcohol concentration, the above method may not be permitted.

In addition, there is no yet scientific indication as to the increase in the rate per hour until the blood alcohol concentration level after drinking reaches the highest level, and there is no data to estimate the defendant's increase in the blood alcohol concentration level in this case.

Thus, the prosecutor's determination of 0.03% of the blood alcohol concentration, the maximum value of which is the 0.03% whose blood alcohol content is decomposed in the lower mouth of blood alcohol, as the blood alcohol concentration increase in the blood alcohol concentration increase in the blood alcohol concentration, based on the alcohol measurement result (it is measured at 0.172% of the blood alcohol concentration around June 24, 2019).