The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts and improper sentencing);

A. In fact, 0.121% of the alcohol concentration among the blood of the Defendant, recognized by the lower court, was measured at the time when 32 minutes elapsed from the time when the Defendant driven the vehicle, that is, when the alcohol concentration in the blood increases, and thus, the Defendant was driven under the influence of alcohol by 0.121% while under the influence of alcohol.

shall not be deemed to exist.

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

2. Judgment on the grounds for appeal

A. As to the assertion of factual misunderstanding, the difference between the point of time and the point of time between the point of time when the alcohol concentration is measured during the blood driving and the point of time when the blood alcohol concentration seems to increase.

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 interval between driving and measurement, the difference between the alcohol level and the standard value of punishment, 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, etc.). (ii) In light of the foregoing legal doctrine, in light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and duly examined by the court and the court, (i) the Defendant was exposed to the police during the external patrol while driving on the road in front of the FPC room located in E on August 11, 2015, and (ii) the Defendant was found to have been at a relatively nearest level during the same time as the alcohol level during which he was engaged in an external patrol during about five meters.