The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Even if the distance between the time of driving and the time of measuring the blood alcohol concentration and the time appears to increase the blood alcohol concentration, such circumstance alone cannot be deemed impossible to prove that the blood alcohol concentration at the time of actual driving exceeds the punishment threshold.

In such a case, whether it can be seen that the level of punishment was above the level of punishment even at the time of driving shall be determined reasonably in accordance with logical and empirical rules, comprehensively taking into account various circumstances, such as the time difference between driving and measurement, the difference between the measured level of blood alcohol concentration and the standard level of punishment, the continuous time and drinking, the driver’s behavior at the time of the measurement, and the situation of the accident, etc.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Do6285, Oct. 24, 2013). Meanwhile, criminal facts have to be proven to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt (Article 307(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act). However, the selection of evidence and the probative value of evidence, which are the premise of fact finding, belong to the free judgment of the fact-finding court.

(Article 308 of the Criminal Procedure Act). 2. The court below found the defendant driving under the influence of alcohol as stated in the criminal facts in the judgment of the court of first instance and found the defendant guilty of the charges in this case.

The allegation in the grounds of appeal disputing fact-finding that led to the judgment of the court below is nothing more than a dispute over the judgment of the court below on the selection and probative value of evidence, which belongs to the free judgment

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the aforementioned legal doctrine and evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err in its judgment by misapprehending the legal doctrine on blood alcohol concentration at the time of driving, failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, or exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules.

According to Article 383 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, death penalty and arms.