beta
Text
Defendants are not guilty. The summary of this judgment is publicly announced.
Reasons
1. Summary of the facts charged
A. On April 19, 2016, Defendant A driven a DN-type car under the influence of alcohol content of about 0.106% at the section of about 25km from the 25km-ro to the 55-ro lady road of the Yancheon-si, Bosung-gun, Bosung-gun, Seocheon-gu, Bocheon-do.
B. On April 19, 2016, Defendant B driven a EN-type car under the influence of alcohol content of about 0.120% at the section of about 25km from the 25km to the 55-ro in the city of Yancheon-si, Cheongcheon-si, Cheongsung-si, Masan-si, Masan-si.
2. If the driver’s blood and pulmonary samples are examined immediately after driving his/her vehicle and the driver’s blood and pulmonary samples are measured, the blood alcohol concentration at the time of driving can be presumed as the result of calculation based on a veterinary method using the so-called dmark formula. However, in order to find out the existence of the elements of crime, individual and specific facts, which form the premise for the application of the law, are required to be strictly proved. In the case of the above dmark formula, the amount of alcohol taken in, drinking time, body weight, etc. as materials for the application of the law, and thus, it is also necessary to prove the premise in order to recognize such premise.
In the instant case, according to the investigation report (the alcohol concentration during the blood transfusion A) and investigation report (the suspect B blood alcohol concentration) submitted as evidence corresponding to the above facts charged, based on the fact that the defendants dmark formula used the above dmark formula that the defendants dynasium (360ml) 2 together with the above dynasium (360ml in the suspect B blood transfusion) and calculated the alcohol concentration during the blood transfusion at 0.106%, and the alcohol concentration during the blood transfusion at the time of the operation of the defendant B as 0.120%.
However, each police statement and each interrogation protocol against the Defendants cannot be admitted as evidence to the extent that the Defendants denies the contents thereof.