도로교통법위반(음주운전)
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
1. A summary of the grounds for appeal was established at the site of the instant accident;
According to CCTV images, at the time, the Defendant was displayed without her body-centered and weight-centered without her body-centered weight-centered, and the lower court, in consideration of the quantity of fresh in beer residues in the application of the aforementioned dmark formula, there is a possibility that the Defendant may be less than 1,360 meters in the quantity of beer and beer.
However, in light of the fact that the defendant has already measured 1,360 male volume of Mare, excluding the quantity of Madre, and that the above dice level in the application of the above dice formula is 0.86, and that the Defendant’s blood alcohol level calculated by applying the most favorable value to the defendant with the 70% absorption rate in body is 0.0568%, the court below found the Defendant not guilty, even though it is obvious that the Defendant was driven under the influence of alcohol level of 0.05% in blood, even though he was driven under the influence of alcohol level of 0.05%.
2. In addition, considering the circumstances properly explained by the court below, it is difficult to conclude that the above dmark formula can be applied because the control point at the time of drinking (2 hours from 20:00 to 22:00) and the interval between the control point and the time (57 minutes from the start point of drinking to the start point of drinking, and 57 minutes from the end point of drinking) can not be determined either within the maximum period or within the period from the start point of drinking to the highest level. Accordingly, it is difficult to conclude that the above dmark formula can be applied because the control point at the point of time was not determined whether the alcohol concentration in the blood was within the maximum period or within the period from the start point of drinking to the highest level. Accordingly, the above calculation result is not entirely reflected from the start point of drinking to the point that the alcohol concentration in the blood transfusion was at least 0.05% which is the punishment standard.
The judgment of the court below that it cannot be seen is just and there is an error of law by mistake as alleged by the prosecutor.
subsection (b) of this section.
Therefore, prosecutor's argument is justified.