도로교통법위반(음주운전)
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
1. The gist of the grounds of appeal is that the alcohol concentration in blood was excessive because it was found that it was only used to clean the mouth before measuring the drinking alcohol of this case and was not sufficiently supplied by the control police officer due to the lack of sufficient water from the control police officer.
2. Determination
A. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged on the ground that the Defendant used approximately 10 minutes of 10 minutes of cryptive steel, not immediately before the measurement of drinking, and trusted the result of the measurement of drinking alcohol of this case in light of the fact that the Defendant was able to have a part of strawing before
B. In addition to each of the circumstances properly explained by the court below, the defendant used an oral clean clean system at least 10 minutes before June 25, 2017, which was discovered by the control of drinking, from around 05:45, and the measurement of drinking of this case was conducted at least 05:51 on the same day. The measurement of drinking of this case was conducted at least 0.118% on the same day. However, as argued by the defendant, even though the alcohol concentration of the oral clean clean system used at the time is within 20%, in general, even if the alcohol concentration of the oral clean system used at the time is measured by around 5 minutes after the use of the oral clean system, it was known that the remaining alcohol content within the mouth was almost about 10 minutes after 10 minutes, and at least 15 minutes after it was known that the defendant had no effect on the alcohol content at least 15 minutes after the enactment of the previous clean alcohol content at least after 15 minutes after the enactment of the alcohol content at least after the time of this case.
Since it is reasonable to view the facts charged in this case, the Road Traffic Act is applicable.