All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) In light of the fact that police officers who conducted the alcohol control against the Defendant did not comply with the traffic control guidelines and all investigation documents, such as a drinking driver’s report, etc., prepared without compliance with the traffic control guidelines, are inadmissible as evidence collected illegally, and thus, cannot be used as evidence of conviction against the Defendant (legal scenarios). (2) At the time of the alcohol control measurement, the blood alcohol concentration was increased at the time of the alcohol control measurement and the police officers delayed the measurement, the Defendant’s blood alcohol concentration did not exceed 0.05%

(M) 2.2

The sentencing (6 months of imprisonment, 2 years of suspended execution) of the court below by the public prosecutor is too uncompared and unreasonable.

(F) Determination; 2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court on the Defendant’s assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine, police officers may recognize the fact that they conducted a drinking test to the Defendant in accordance with the traffic control guidelines, and there is no evidence to acknowledge the fact that they violated the guidelines, such as making a drinking test for a long time without reasonable grounds.

In addition, the "traffic control guidelines" stipulated in the drinking control procedure is only the internal guidelines of the National Police Agency, and there is no externally binding effect on the general public or the court. Thus, the legality of the drinking test shall not be determined only by the traffic control guidelines but also by the provisions and purport of the Road Traffic Act.

(See Supreme Court Decision 201Do11279 Decided October 27, 201, and Supreme Court Decision 2003Du3017 Decided December 23, 2004, etc.). Even if a police officer who conducted drinking control on the Defendant did not comply with the traffic control guidelines of the National Police Agency in the course of performing a drinking measurement, it cannot be said that the procedure for measuring the drinking level is unlawful.

The defendant's assertion of the legal principles is without merit.

B. The judgment of the court below on the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts is legitimate.