The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact, blood alcohol concentration was 0.121% from blood due to pulmonary measurement conducted after 2 hours from the time of driving under the influence of alcohol. The blood collection measurement conducted after approximately 17 minutes passed from that point is excessively high by 0.225%.

The Defendant was in a state of drinking alcohol by drinking alcohol content of 0.239% (the application of the aforementioned marks) in light of the Defendant’s behavior immediately after the accident, etc., such as making a traffic accident while driving a drinking and reporting an accident by driving a telephone to an insurance company on his/her own.

It is difficult to view it.

Therefore, 0.121% of the depositee due to pulmonary measurement should be applied to the defendant.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (six months of imprisonment and two years of suspended sentence) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below as to the assertion of mistake of facts, the fact that the defendant driven while under influence of alcohol 0.239% as stated in the facts constituting the crime in the judgment below is recognized (in case of the defendant's assertion, at around 09:15 when about 3:35 minutes elapsed from 05:40, the final drinking time, the final drinking time, and around 3:35 minutes from the final drinking time (the most favorable value to the defendant), so 0.239% calculated by applying the above drone formula, based on 0.225% from the final drinking time, can be deemed as the alcohol concentration of the defendant's blood alcohol at the time of drinking.

In addition, the crime of this case constitutes a case where a person who drives drinking twice or more times drives drinking again, and thus, the degree of alcohol concentration exceeds 0.2% does not affect the establishment of the crime. (b) Although there are favorable circumstances for the defendant, such as the fact that the defendant recognizes the crime as a substitute and reflects it, and that the defendant sells a vehicle by mistake that he/she would not drive drinking again, the defendant on the other hand is able to do so.