The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The result of alcohol level measurement against the Defendant misunderstanding the fact was suspected of being admissible and credibility due to the following procedural defects. The Defendant was in a state of 0.05% or more of alcohol level while driving.

It is difficult to see it.

However, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous by misunderstanding facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

(1) The time when the defendant causes a traffic accident and the time when the pulmonary measurement is conducted by the defendant shall be applicable to the increase in alcohol concentration in blood.

If so, at the time of the operation of the defendant, the alcohol concentration of the defendant's blood is lower than that of the respiratory measurement, i.e., 0.05% or less.

② At the time of the breath measurement, the Defendant: (a) laid down a part part of his/her equipment, which he/she was suffering by a police officer; (b) demanded a police officer to re-examine the water; but (c) was denied and was under the breath measurement while the police officer was unable to engage in the breath

The defendant has a large number of beams and fluorries, and there is a high possibility that alcohol remains in the fluor, and the result of repulmon measurement conducted in a state where the defendant was unable to suffer from the fluor's fluor's disease is believed.

③ On the preceding day of the instant case, the Defendant had suffered from extreme urology, suffering from severe urology, and bladrology and blood pressure. However, no investigation was conducted on these factors.

The consent to and confirmation of blood collection was signed by medical personnel I at the bottom of the blood collection and there was no signature by the defendant, and the defendant did not undergo any verification procedure after the collection of blood.

Therefore, the result of blood examination of the defendant cannot be trusted.

(4) At the time of detection of the Defendant’s drinking operation as stated in the investigation report (report on the circumstances of the driver in charge) by the Defendant, the Defendant was in a weak state.

It is reasonable to view it.

(b).