[교통사고처리특례법위반·도로교통법위반][공2001.9.1.(137),1904]
[1] The point of attention in calculating the blood alcohol concentration using the reverse acid formula by the Madmmark formula
[2] The case holding that the blood alcohol concentration cannot be calculated by adding a decrease in blood alcohol concentration to the post-measurement under the circumstance that it is impossible to determine whether the blood alcohol concentration is the rise point or lower point of time
[1] In calculating the blood alcohol concentration at the time of driving by adding the blood alcohol concentration after a certain time from the specific driving point of time to the degree of decline due to the decline due to the decomposition and extinguishment of blood alcohol during the time, various factors such as the level of normal alcohol, physical quality, drinking speed, and the degree of physical activities after drinking may affect the decrease of blood alcohol during time. Thus, in criminal trials, it is necessary to prove that the conviction in criminal trials is true beyond reasonable doubt. Thus, in applying the above factors of influence, it is necessary to establish that the defendant can not easily conclude that the average decrease is the average, and if necessary, it is necessary to determine factors that may affect the blood alcohol concentration at an objective and reasonable level with the assistance of a person with professional knowledge or experience, and if it is considerably necessary, it is not necessary to determine the degree that the blood alcohol concentration exceeds that calculated by the above formula, but to determine the degree that the blood alcohol concentration is considerably higher than that calculated by the above formula.
[2] The case holding that it cannot be concluded that the blood alcohol concentration at the time of drinking operation exceeds the punishment standard on the ground that the blood alcohol concentration at the time of drinking operation exceeds the punishment standard on the ground that the blood alcohol concentration calculated by adding the blood alcohol concentration to the blood alcohol concentration at the time of drinking operation, in addition to the blood alcohol concentration at the time of drinking operation, which is calculated by adding the blood alcohol concentration at the time of blood alcohol concentration at the time of drinking operation, cannot be determined as exceeding the punishment standard on the ground that the blood alcohol concentration at the time of drinking operation exceeds the punishment standard on the ground that it cannot be determined whether the blood alcohol concentration at the time of drinking operation is higher than the blood alcohol concentration at the time of drinking alcohol level
[1] Articles 41 and 107-2 of the Road Traffic Act, Articles 307 and 323(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act / [2] Articles 41 and 107-2 of the Road Traffic Act, Articles 307 and 323(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act
[1] Supreme Court Decision 2000Do3307 decided Oct. 24, 200 (Gong2000Ha, 2473) Supreme Court Decision 99Do5541 decided Nov. 10, 200 (Gong2001Sang, 75)
Defendant
Prosecutor
Suwon District Court Decision 2000No1473 delivered on March 26, 2001
The appeal is dismissed.
원심은, 피고인이 1999. 2. 17. 01:30경 혈중알코올농도 0.06%의 주취상태로 승용차를 운전하다가 전방 주시의무를 게을리 한 과실로 추돌사고를 일으켜 피해자들에게 상해를 입게 하였다는 교통사고처리특례법위반 및 도로교통법위반의 공소사실에 대하여, 피고인이 사고 당시 혈중알코올농도 0.06%의 술에 취한 상태에서 운전하였다는 점에 대한 결정적인 증거는 사고발생 후 68분이 경과한 같은 날 02:38경 경찰관이 피고인에게 음주측정기에 의한 음주측정요구를 하여 측정된 결과가 0.045%이었고, 위 결과를 기초로 혈중알코올농도의 시간당 감소치를 0.015%/h로 산정하여 사고 당시의 혈중알코올농도를 역추산하는 방식인 위드마크(Widmark) 공식을 이용하여 사고 당시의 혈중알코올농도를 역추산한 결과 그 수치가 0.06%{≒ 0.045% + (0.015% x 68/60)}에 해당한다는 내용의 사법경찰리 작성의 주취운전자적발보고서 및 수사보고서라고 할 수 있는데, 피고인의 평소 음주정도, 체질, 음주속도, 음주 후 신체활동의 정도 등 시간당 알코올분해량에 영향을 미칠 수 있는 여러 전제적인 사실들을 인정할 만한 객관적이고 합리적인 증거가 없는 상태에서 대체적으로 평균인의 혈중알코올농도의 시간당 감소치가 0.015%/h에 해당한다고 일률적으로 전제하고 피고인이 당연히 위 평균인에 속한다고 보아 피고인의 사고 당시의 혈중알코올농도가 0.06%인 것으로 단정할 수는 없으므로, 결국 이 사건 공소사실 중 음주운전으로 인한 도로교통법위반의 점은 범죄의 증명이 없는 때에 해당한다고 하여 이 부분에 대하여는 무죄를, 교통사고처리특례법위반의 점에 대하여는 피고인이 운전한 승용차가 같은 법 제4조 제1항, 제2항에 정해진 보험에 가입되어 있다고 하여 공소를 기각하였다.
If a driver's blood or pulmonary sample is examined immediately after driving and measured the blood alcohol concentration at the time of driving, it is possible to estimate the blood alcohol concentration at the time of driving as a result of scientific calculation using the so-called Hemark formula. However, if an empirical rule, such as scientific public awareness, is used to find out the existence of the constituent elements of the crime, it is necessary to provide strict proof of individual and specific facts premised on the application of such rule. Meanwhile, if the blood alcohol concentration measured after a certain time from a specific driving point of time, using the dmark formula, is based on the blood alcohol concentration measured after a certain time from a specific driving point of time, and such concentration is calculated according to the reduced rate of blood alcohol at the time of driving after addition to the blood alcohol concentration at the time of driving, it is not necessary to determine that the defendant's average blood content concentration exceeds 10,000,000,000, which is more than 10,000,000,000,00).
In light of these legal principles, the defendant's blood alcohol concentration reduced per hour by average person is 0.015%/h, and the calculation of blood alcohol concentration at the time of the defendant's accident cannot be a legitimate proof of blood alcohol concentration at the time of the accident.
한편, 기록에 의하면 사고발생 시각이 01:30이고 음주 측정 시각이 02:38이라는 점에 대하여는 엄격한 증명이 있었다고 보이고, 일반적으로 확인된 시간당 혈중알코올농도 감소치의 최소한이 상고이유에서 주장하는 바와 같은 0.008%/h라고 할 때 이 수치는 곧 피고인에게 가장 유리한 수치가 된다고 할 것인데, 이와 같이 피고인에게 가장 유리한 감소치를 적용하여 위드마크 공식에 따라 사고시점인 01:30경의 혈중알코올농도를 계산하더라도 0.054%{≒ 0.045% + (0.008% x 68/60)}가 되어 도로교통법상 처벌기준인 0.05%를 넘는 결과가 됨은 상고이유의 주장과 같다.
However, it is limited to the blood alcohol concentration calculated in such a way that exceeds 0.05%, which is the standard subject of punishment, and it is difficult to determine the period of punishment after adding the above dicmark to the degree of food that is in a disguised in drinking, etc., although there is a difference for each individual depending on the body quality of the person under examination, the kind of drinking alcohol, the degree of drinking, and the degree of food that is found in a disguised in drinking. However, it is difficult to determine whether the blood alcohol concentration in the records of this case exceeds the maximum level of punishment, or if the blood alcohol concentration in the process of accident increases beyond the maximum level of punishment, it is clear that the dicmark method is applied, but if the blood alcohol concentration in the above dicmark is not permitted after adding the above 0% alcohol concentration to the degree of food that is found in a disguised in drinking.
Therefore, the court below found the defendant not guilty on the violation of the Road Traffic Act in the purport that there is no proof as to the fact that blood alcohol level exceeds 0.05% at the time of the defendant's accident, and dismissed the public prosecution on the violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents. Thus, the ground of appeal on this point cannot be accepted.
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.
Justices Yoon Jae-sik (Presiding Justice)