A. In fact, the Defendant, at the time of measuring the alcohol alcohol of this case, conducted a pulmonary measurement on a total of seven occasions at the police officer’s continued demand for the measurement, and even if the alcohol concentration was not measured up to six times, the police officer continued to demand the pulmonary measurement while replacing a fire. The 7th blood alcohol concentration was measured at 0.087%.

Therefore, it cannot be ruled out that the alcohol concentration measurement result in the blood as above is a pulmonary measuring instrument with remaining alcohol in the pulmonary measuring instrument, and thus, it cannot be viewed as legitimate evidence of conviction. Thus, the Defendant was driving under the influence of alcohol with a maximum of 0.05% alcohol concentration in the blood that is the standard for punishment.

It shall not be readily concluded.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which convicted the defendant of the facts charged in this case is erroneous in the misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles that affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (one million won in penalty) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

가. 사실 오인 및 법리 오해 주장에 대한 판단 1) 원심은 적법하게 채택하여 조사한 증거를 종합하여 인정되는 다음과 같은 사정들, 즉 ① 위 음주 측정 시점은 최종 음주 시점으로부터 50분 이상이 경과하여 구강 내 알콜이 잔존하는 통상적인 시간인 20분을 훨씬 초과하였던 점, ② 피고인이 6 회째까지 음주 운전 적발을 염려하여 불 대를 물고만 있거나 불 대에 바람을 불어넣는 시늉만을 하고 실제로는 제대로 바람을 불어넣지 않았기에 호흡 측정기가 아예 작동하지 아니하였던 것으로 보이는 점, ③ 위와 같은 사정들에 비추어 보면 7 회째 음 주측정 시점 당시 호흡 측정기에 그 이전의 음주 측정으로 인한 알콜이 잔존하고 있었을 가능성은 매우 낮은 것으로 보이고,...