beta
Text
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts) was proved as to the basic facts that constitute the premise for the application of the aforementioned dmark formula, since the Defendant was at the time of attending the police and was 0.032% of the dmark measurement value at the time of the Defendant’s appearance at the police.
Therefore, the standard value of punishment is 0.061% higher than that of the Defendant, since the estimated drinking value is calculated as 0.111% by using the reverse calculation method by the dmark formula, and the standard value of punishment is 0.061% higher than that of the Defendant.
I would like to say.
Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged of this case is erroneous and adversely affected by the judgment.
2. Summary and judgment of the facts charged
A. On July 17, 2015, the Defendant driven a DNA car at a section of approximately 12 km to the front road of Gwanak-gu in Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Seoul Special Metropolitan City, while under the influence of alcohol level of 0.11% among blood transfusion around July 17, 2015.
B. The lower court determined that: (a) the lower court stated that (i) when estimating alcohol concentration in the blood by using the reverse dmark formula, there are various factors that may affect the blood alcohol concentration at a specific point after drinking in addition to the basic materials necessary for applying the saiddmark formula; (b) there is no doubt that the reverse dmark formula by the aboved mark formula has a considerable degree of uncertainty; and (iii) the Defendant made at an investigative agency on July 16, 2015 to 23:30, the Defendant made a statement that he/she breathm while drinking one disease or two beer while drinking at the drinking house located in Songpa-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government from around 21:30 to 23:30; and (iv) the investigative agency did not make an investigation into the kind of drinking alcohol, the Defendant’s physical condition after drinking alcohol, and the degree of drinking alcohol at the time of his/her drinking; and (v) the Defendant did not make the most favorable for the Defendant at the time of his/her alcohol concentration decrease by applying the same 0.