The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In light of the fact that, at the time of measuring the instant drinking, the time of measuring the instant drinking by mistake was 90 minutes from the end of the drinking, the blood alcohol concentration was risen within 90 minutes from the end of the drinking, and the Defendant responded to the drinking measurement without having been faced with the blood alcohol level, the Defendant was not under the influence of alcohol concentration of 0.158% at the time of driving.

B. The sentencing of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (an amount of KRW 3 million) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The time difference between the driving point and the point at which the alcohol concentration in the blood is measured, as to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts, and the time seems to increase the alcohol concentration in the blood.

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 content 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, etc. (see Supreme Court Decisions 2013Do3360, Jun. 12, 2014; 2013Do8649, Nov. 28, 2013; 2013Do6285, Oct. 24, 2013). Comprehensively considering the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence examined by the lower court, the alcohol measurement in this case was lawfully conducted against the Defendant at least 0.1% of alcohol level during driving, and the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol above 0.1% of alcohol level during blood.

may be seen.

The lower court did not err by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the judgment.

(1) On January 22, 2017, the defendant while driving a vehicle, he/she stops at the seat of 22:25 on January 22, 201.