도로교통법위반(음주운전)
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The blood alcohol content of the Defendant is not the blood collection immediately after driving, but the blood alcohol content is measured through an examination of blood collected after a considerable time from the driving point of time. The Defendant’s pulmonology and blood collection are generally considered to have risen (which is between 30 to 90 minutes from the final drinking point). Since the Defendant’s blood alcohol content through blood examination is likely to have been contaminated in the course of collecting, transporting, and storing the blood, the above blood alcohol concentration cannot be deemed to be the blood alcohol concentration at the time of driving of the Defendant. Moreover, even according to the above mark model, it is difficult to presume the blood alcohol concentration at the time of driving of the Defendant, and thus, even according to the above mark model, it is difficult to presume the blood alcohol concentration at the time of driving of the Defendant, and thus, the Defendant cannot be deemed to have driven a vehicle at the state of drinking with the blood alcohol concentration of 0.286% at the time stated in the instant facts charged, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine or misapprehending the judgment.
As seen below, since the prosecutor changed the facts charged in the trial court, the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles cannot be viewed as the subject of determination in relation to the changed facts charged, and the defendant's assertion to the effect that even according to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, even if the changed facts charged are based on the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, it cannot be viewed that the blood alcohol concentration at the time of driving of the defendant was not 0.05% or more. Thus, the judgment is based on the grounds for appeal as to
B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (eight months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
2. Ex officio determination of the defendant.