All appeals by the defendant are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles 1) Since the nurse in charge of collecting blood from the Defendant without a doctor’s instruction in violation of the Medical Service Act, the appraisal request report (Evidence No. 40 pages) and drinking sprink (Evidence No. 46 pages) containing the appraisal result of the alcohol concentration of the blood gathered as such constitutes illegally collected evidence and cannot be used as evidence of conviction of violation of the Road Traffic Act regardless of the Defendant’s consent, regardless of whether it is obtained or not. 2) Meanwhile, since the above nurse in charge is likely to have mixed alcohol with blood by using the species of alcohol stored in the hospital in the process of collecting blood, it is difficult to trust the appraisal result of blood alcohol concentration.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant (Article 1: 2,50,000 won, and Article 2: Imprisonment with prison labor for six months, two years of suspended execution, probation order, and an order to attend the alcohol treatment lecture for forty hours) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below that the evidence of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles is excluded from admissibility as illegally collected evidence, the defendant thought that the blood alcohol concentration was high due to the pulmonary measurement on March 19, 2016, and requested the measurement of blood alcohol concentration through blood collection. Accordingly, the defendant and the police demanded the measurement of blood collection consent (Evidence No. 19 of the Evidence Record). The defendant and the police requested the nurse to take the blood collection to the U Hospital emergency department located in Cheongcheon-si, and then requested the nurse working therein to take blood collection, that is, the nurse collected the blood of the defendant from the seat and sent it to the police officer immediately, but did not separately provide specific instructions from the doctor during that process (this is recognized if the trial record No. 40 of the trial record is recognized).

However, as in this case, the defendant responded to the legitimate demand of police officers.