Of the facts charged in the instant case, the charge of violating the Road Traffic Act is not guilty. Each of the facts charged in the instant case is erroneous.

The acquittal portion

1. On September 25, 2015, the Defendant: (a) around 00:25, the Defendant driven a rocketing motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol exceeding 0.050% of alcohol content in a section of approximately seven meters from the right edge to the right edge of the industrial college entrance of the Hansan-si, Masan-si, Masan-si, Seoul Metropolitan City.

2. Although the blood alcohol concentration from blood due to judgment alcohol has a little number of individuals, it has reached the highest value after the lapse of 30 to 90 minutes from the date of ordinary drinking, and later, it is known that it gradually reduces approximately 0.08% from 0.08% to 0.03% per hour (average 0.015%).

However, in a case where it is impossible to determine whether the blood alcohol concentration is in a situation where the blood alcohol concentration toward the highest level or is in a situation where it comes down to the highest level and it is difficult to determine whether it falls under a situation where it comes to the highest level, and if it is likely that it is in a situation where it comes to rise, it cannot be confirmed that the blood alcohol concentration at the time of driving is in a reverse state from the time when the blood alcohol concentration is measured (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Du15035, Jan. 11, 207). Provided, That the time difference between the time of driving and the time of measuring the blood alcohol concentration and the time it appears that the blood concentration is to increase in the blood alcohol concentration.

Even if such circumstance alone makes it impossible to prove that the alcohol concentration at the time of actual operation exceeds the standard value of punishment.

shall not be deemed to exist.

In such a case, the punishment level was higher than the standard level at the time of driving.

Whether it can be seen or not shall be determined reasonably in accordance with logical and empirical rules, comprehensively taking into account various circumstances acknowledged by evidence, such as the distance between driving and measurement, the difference between the value of alcohol concentration and the standard value of punishment, the hours during which drinking continues, the amount of drinking, the driver’s behavior level at the time of crackdown and measurement, and the situation of the accident if there is a traffic accident (Supreme Court Decision 2014Do3360 Decided June 12, 2014; Supreme Court Decision 2014Do3360 Decided June 12, 2014; and October 2013.