Nevertheless, the court below acquitted the primary and conjunctive charges, and the judgment of the court below erred by misapprehending the facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is as follows: (a) On April 21, 2017, the primary Defendant driven a Crocketing car in the state of alcohol concentration of about 0.186 km from the instant high school at the same rate of 841-15 square meters to the front, regardless of whether the 199-15-1-Jed farm is the same, with a window inside the strict level of view to around 21:40 on April 21, 2017.

2) The Defendant, at the time and place set forth in paragraph (1) above, driven the vehicles set forth in paragraph (1) above while under the influence of alcohol above 0.05% in blood at the time and place set forth in paragraph (1).

B. The judgment of the court below and this court 1) The result of the measurement of drinking conducted under Article 44 (2) of the Road Traffic Act can be the basis for the disadvantageous disposition against the driver, such as cancellation or suspension of the driver's license, based on the result, and it can be used as important evidence in future investigation and trial. Thus, the measurement of drinking is conducted in accordance with fair methods and procedures to ensure the accuracy and objectivity of the measurement, such as taking necessary measures in advance to prevent any error due to remaining alcohol in the mouth of the driver's mouth. If the result of the measurement of drinking is not obtained through such methods and procedures, it shall not be easily admitted as evidence of guilt (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Do5531, Aug. 21, 2008).