도로교통법위반(음주운전)
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
1. The main point of the grounds for appeal is that the drinking alcohol in this case was measured without any opportunity, such as 20 minutes after drinking alcohol, and therefore, it cannot be deemed that the drinking alcohol in this case was measured through legitimate procedures. The judgment of the court below is erroneous in misunderstanding of facts, on the basis of the result of the measurement of drinking alcohol.
2. Determination
(a) The degree of blood alcohol is measured by means of the concentration of alcohol contained in the respiratory part of the breath in case the breath of the measuring instrument makes the breath of the measuring instrument unusable, and thus, in a case where the breath of the measuring instrument is measured in the remaining condition of alcohol, the measuring instrument may cause a measurement level much higher than the actual blood alcohol concentration due to the influence of the remaining alcohol. Therefore, the measuring instrument must check the last alcohol time of the breath and measure it with the breath of the measuring instrument, so that it can be measured or breath of it after a considerable time
B. The grounds of appeal that the court below and the trial court duly adopted and examined the evidence and the following circumstances acknowledged by the records, namely, ① the Defendant signed on the date of the instant case’s “the result of the regulation on drinking alcohol control” to the effect that “the blood alcohol content was measured at 0.089% by measuring 20 minutes after drinking at the end of drinking” to the effect that “the blood alcohol content was measured at 0.089% after drinking at the end of 20 minutes after drinking.” While the Defendant was signed in the confirmation column, the Defendant stated that “I signed without proper confirmation by the Defendant.”
However, it does not seem that the defendant who continuously raised an objection to the police officer with regard to the measures such as strawing from the breath test before the breath test did not confirm the above contents and signed it;
(2) The defendant is the police around January 4, 2012, and around 23:19.