교통사고처리특례법위반등
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
The summary of the grounds for appeal by the prosecutor is as follows: concerning the violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving of alcohol) among the facts charged in the instant case, the possibility that the blood alcohol concentration could have occurred during driving at the time of the defendant's driving cannot be ruled out; thus, the defendant's blood concentration exceeds 0.05%, and thus, the court below acquitted the defendant on the ground that there is no evidence to acknowledge the fact that the blood alcohol concentration is above 0.05%; according to this, the driver was subject to the crackdown on driving of alcohol during blood, and the blood alcohol concentration is measured between 0.05% and 0.06%, and thus, the non-guilty verdict cannot be made; thus, this would be justified in light of the purport of the Road Traffic Act, which provides that the driver shall be punished for driving of alcohol with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding 0.05%, which affected the conclusion of the judgment
Judgment
According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, the lower court determined that the Defendant’s blood alcohol concentration at around 23:00 on March 14, 2016 at around 21:00 to 22:50 on the same day when driving after drinking one-half of the Defendant’s blood content at around 23:00 on the same day, and that the Defendant’s blood alcohol concentration at around 23:37 on the same day was measured at 0.059% on the same day, and that the Defendant’s blood alcohol concentration at around the river was measured at around 0.05% on the ground that there was no other evidence to acknowledge the Defendant’s violation of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Management of Traffic Accidents (i.e., the Defendant’s physical strength, drinking speed, and the degree of food at which the alcohol concentration at the time of driving cannot be ruled out, and thus, the lower court found the Defendant not guilty of the charges concerning the violation of the Act on Traffic Safety.
Examining the above circumstances admitted by the lower court in light of the evidence, the lower court’s aforementioned determination is made.