The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal brought about an accident caused by the Defendant’s loss of his ability to exercise due care due to an anti-competitive disorder. ① The Defendant, in the process of drinking drugs in order to correct these symptoms after the above accident, he saw the beer who left the beer before male-gu in flussium, ② the Defendant used the beer frame periodically like usual, ③ the Defendant used the beer frame at ordinary times during driving, ③ the Defendant was 0.187% drinking results, and even if the Defendant did not drink before the occurrence of the accident, the Defendant was guilty of the Defendant. The lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles.

2. Determination

A. On January 31, 2017, the Defendant, while under the influence of alcohol level of 0.187% in light of light blood around 22:58 on January 31, 2017, driven a motor vehicle with lurbbbed C Abdo in the front-dong, Busan-gu.

B. The lower court’s determination 1) Article 44(2) and (3) of the Road Traffic Act imposes a duty on a driver to respond to the respiratory examination; while, in the event that a driver is dissatisfied with the result of the pulmonary examination, the driver is able to re-measurement by means of blood collection, etc.; and even if the driver is unaware of the detailed methods and procedures for specific objection to the result of the pulmonary examination, the driver’s expression of objection thereto is either impossible or considerably difficult; barring any special circumstance, he/she is obliged to notify the driver of the purport that the police officer who measured the pulmonary level of alcohol in blood can re-measurement by means of blood collection, barring special circumstances.

It can not be seen, and only because it was not notified, the result of the breath test is based on the breath test.