The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The gist of the grounds of appeal is that the Defendant was found to have driven a drinking alcohol under the influence of alcohol more than 0.1%, solely on the ground that the blood alcohol concentration was measured as 0.12% as a result of a drinking measurement, and thus, the Defendant cannot be concluded to have driven a drinking alcohol under the influence of alcohol more than 0.1%.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which recognized that the defendant was driving under the influence of alcohol with a blood alcohol concentration of not less than 0.1% is erroneous in misunderstanding of facts.

2. Examining the following facts and circumstances, the court below’s duly adopted and examined evidence and the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, it can be sufficiently recognized that the defendant driven the vehicle while under the influence of alcohol exceeding 0.1% of the blood alcohol content around November 5, 2014, as stated in the judgment of the court below, as stated in the judgment of the court below.

1) On November 5, 2014, the Defendant asserted that the blood alcohol concentration was 01:29 on November 5, 2014, which was measured at the above time, was 0.12% of the blood alcohol concentration measured at the above time as the Defendant’s blood alcohol concentration at the time of driving. However, the Defendant was exposed to the blood alcohol control from around 01:24 on November 5, 2014 to around 150 meters, and the result of measuring the blood alcohol concentration at around 01:29 at the place where the Defendant was discovered, was 0.12% of the blood alcohol concentration at around 01:29. As long as the Defendant’s driving time and the blood alcohol concentration measurement time are continued as above (the difference between the time indicated in the prosecution and the time of measuring the blood alcohol concentration is merely 5 minutes.

() The result of the above blood alcohol concentration measurement appears to be the blood alcohol concentration in the Defendant’s driving. This is also true even if the Defendant was at the time when the blood alcohol concentration was increased. Furthermore, the Defendant asserts that the final date and time of drinking recorded in the police interrogation protocol on November 4, 2014 was not the “23:25,” but the final time of drinking as indicated in the police interrogation protocol against the Defendant.