A. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the fact that the defendant driven a vehicle while under influence of 0.085% alcohol level as stated in the facts charged can be acknowledged.

Of the facts charged in this case, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant on the violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving) is erroneous.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the grounds of unreasonable sentencing (two million won of a fine) is too uneased and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In estimating the degree of blood alcohol level at the time of driving by misunderstanding of facts (as to the violation of the Road Traffic Act) based on the blood alcohol level measured after a certain time from a specific driving point of time by using the reverse dmark formula, and adding the blood alcohol density to the blood alcohol level at the time after the time of driving calculated according to the decrease due to the decomposition or extinguishment of blood alcohol during a certain time, it may affect the reduction of blood alcohol level per hour. Thus, in criminal trials, it is necessary to prove that the conviction of guilt in the above influence factors is true beyond a reasonable doubt. Thus, in application of the above influence factors, it is not necessary to apply the average decrease rate by readily concluding that the defendant is the average person, and if it is not necessary, it is considerably necessary to determine the degree that the blood alcohol concentration exceeds the objective and reasonable blood alcohol concentration with the assistance of a person with expertise or experience, and if it is considerably necessary to determine the degree that the blood alcohol concentration exceeds the above permissible level by the alcohol concentration.