Nevertheless, the court below erred by misunderstanding the facts charged or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, based on the above evidence.

2. The judgment of the court below also made the same assertion, and the court below held that the defendant was sent to the emergency room of the Korea Forest Hospital immediately after the traffic accident, and it was difficult for the police officer D, who was in charge of the above accident processing, to take a drinking test with the respiratory measuring instrument because D had been aware of the defendant at the time of arrival to the above hospital, but it was difficult for him to take a drinking test with the respiratory measuring instrument because D had been drinking water at the time of arrival to the above hospital; D asked the defendant as to whether he consented to blood collection; and at the time, he was going to the nurse E of the above hospital at the time of blood collection. In light of the above, it was reasonable to view that at the time of blood collection, the defendant was able to talk with D, who was a police officer, with respect to blood collection. Accordingly, the court below found the defendant guilty of the charges of this case by finding the State and the appraisal report, and detection of the blood collection report as evidence.

Examining the above judgment of the court below in comparison with the records, it is just and acceptable to the judgment of the court below. Contrary to the defendant's assertion, there is no error of law by misunderstanding facts or by misunderstanding the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. Thus, the defendant'

3. If so, the defendant's appeal is justified.