The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

The summary of the grounds for appeal (the misunderstanding of legal principles) is that the Defendant returned to the house after an accident occurred, taken 2 eggs of water exemption, and dump additionally drinks to the extent of anti-infection.

Therefore, since the defendant was in a state of normal judgment ability at the time of measuring the drinking volume, the report on the circumstantial statement of the drinking driver and the testimony of F on the defendant's status at the time of measuring the drinking volume is difficult to believe.

In addition, since the point of time of the measurement of alcohol in this case is the rise of blood alcohol concentration within 20 minutes from the final point of time of drinking, the Airmark formula in this case cannot be applied.

Therefore, since the defendant cannot be deemed to have proved without any reasonable doubt that he was driving in the state of blood alcohol concentration of not less than 0.1%, the court below found the defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case in violation of law of mistake and misapprehension of legal principles.

Judgment

Even if there is an interval between the point of time and the point of time of measuring the blood alcohol concentration, and the point of time seems to increase the blood alcohol concentration, such circumstance alone cannot be deemed insufficient to prove that the blood alcohol concentration at the time of actual operation exceeds the penalty standard.

In such cases, whether a person can be deemed to have been above the standard level of punishment even at the time of driving shall be determined reasonably in accordance with logical and empirical rules, comprehensively taking into account various circumstances acknowledged by evidence, such as the time interval between driving and measurement, the difference between the measured blood alcohol concentration and the standard value of punishment, the continuous time and drinking, the driver's behavior level at the time of the measurement, the degree of traffic accident, the circumstance of the accident, and the circumstances.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2013Do3360 Decided June 12, 2014; Supreme Court Decision 2013Do8649 Decided November 28, 2013; Supreme Court Decision 2013Do6285 Decided October 24, 2013). Each of the circumstances stated by the lower court in its judgment are as follows.