A. misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles that the defendant did not drink to the degree of 0.269% of blood alcohol level at the time of the accident in this case, and the defendant respondeded to the measurement of alcohol level by blood gathering at the police officer's request after he respondeded to the breath test. Thus, the blood collection in this case not only contravenes the provisions of the Road Traffic Act, but also deviates from the legality as a voluntary investigation, and was made without the defendant's genuine consent. However, the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the admissibility of blood alcohol level as a result of the measurement of alcohol level as a result of blood collection, or erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the admissibility of blood alcohol level as a result of the measurement of blood sampling.

B. The lower court’s sentence (seven million won of fine) imposed on the Defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on misconception of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

A. The summary of the judgment of the court below is as follows. The defendant's response to the breath test by the breathr, and the breath test by the victim and the police officer's response to the breath test, but the police officer at the time obtained the consent of blood collection from the defendant and conducted the procedure. The victims did not force the defendant's consent to blood collection because the defendant's location was separated, and the police officer failed to force the defendant's consent to blood collection. The victim's consent was insufficient as a result of the breath test, and the victim's consent was presented. Although the defendant responded to the breath test by the breathr, if there is a problem in the breathrology or if the defendant's response to the breath test by the breathr, the investigative agency shall obtain a warrant from the court