도로교통법위반(음주운전)
The defendant is innocent. The summary of this judgment shall be notified publicly.
1. The Defendant, on January 25, 2017, driven the E options car volume on the road front of the D parking lot located in E in E in E in E in E in E in E in terms of a state of drinking alcohol concentration of 0.078% among blood transfusion around 01:20.
2. Determination
(a) If it is impossible to measure the alcohol concentration in blood as a result of an examination of the driver’s blood, breath, etc. immediately after driving, the driver’s blood concentration in blood at the time of driving may be calculated using the so-called dmark formula as a result of calculation in a veterinary method and may be used as a reference for conviction.
However, in a case where an official rule of experience, such as science, is used to find out the existence of the elements of crime, individual and specific facts, which are the premise for the application of the rule of law, are required to be strictly proved. In the case of the above dmark formula, the quantity of alcohol taken in, drinking time, body weight, etc. As such, strict proof is required to recognize such premise (see Supreme Court Decision 99Do128, Jun. 27, 200). (2) Furthermore, the method of estimating the concentration of alcohol in blood as prescribed by the above dmark formula, is part of the calculation of the alcohol concentration in the highest blood due to the absorption distribution of alcohol, and it is related to the decomposition of alcohol concentration in the highest blood, and among them, it is necessary to have the effect of the alcohol absorption rate, criminal trial, vision, age, increase and weight of alcohol, etc., the degree of personal alcohol concentration at which the influence of alcohol may vary depending on the degree of their influence on the body and body density of alcohol, the degree of debratization of alcohol, etc.