The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. On April 4, 2016, when around 16:30 on April 4, 2016, when the measurement of alcohol content was conducted with respect to the Defendant as to the Defendant’s blood, from 15:00 to 90 minutes after the date of final drinking, the highest point is also reached among the raised seasons.

Therefore, the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol to the extent that it exceeds the punishment standard (not less than 0.05% in blood alcohol concentration) at the time of driving of the instant case only with the alcohol content (0.15% in blood) of the blood measured as above.

It shall not be readily concluded.

The lower court erred by misapprehending the facts.

B. The sentence that the court below rendered unfair sentencing (a punishment of eight months of imprisonment, a suspended sentence of two years, community service, 80 hours, and 40 hours of instruction of compliance driving) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) As to the assertion of factual misunderstanding, there is an interval between the point of time when alcohol alcohol driving and the point of time when alcohol concentration is measured during blood, and the time seems to increase the alcohol concentration during 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 concentration and the standard value of punishment in measured blood, the hours during which drinking continues, drinking volume, 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 Decision 2013Do6285, Oct. 24, 2013). In full view of the following facts and circumstances that can be recognized by the court below and this court duly adopted and investigated by evidence, it can be sufficiently recognized that the Defendant had been under the influence of alcohol content at least 0.05% during blood driving at the time of the instant case.

In this case.