The judgment below

The guilty part shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

provided that this ruling has become final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In light of the circumstances of the accident, the defendant himself/herself can be found to have driven under the influence of alcohol on the day of the accident. The defendant seems to have been driven under the influence of alcohol at the time of the accident in light of the circumstances of the accident, and in the case of collecting blood in the state of complete construction of the parts disinfected into the species of alcohol, the alcohol in the species of alcohol does not affect the blood alcohol concentration of the defendant.

Therefore, although this part of the facts charged can be found guilty, the judgment of the court below which acquitted this part of the facts charged is erroneous in misconception of facts.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (six months of imprisonment, two years of suspended sentence, two years of probation, community service, 80 hours of imprisonment) is too uneased and unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the prosecutor's assertion of mistake of facts

A. The lower court found the Defendant not guilty of this part of the facts charged on the ground that there is insufficient evidence to support that the Defendant was driving under the influence of alcohol level of 0.318% on the sole basis of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor as stated in its reasoning.

B. The result of the measurement of alcohol conducted under Article 44 (2) of the Road Traffic Act can serve as the basis for the driver to take disadvantageous measures, such as revocation or suspension of a driver's license, depending on the result. Since the alcohol measurement can be used as an important evidence in future investigation and trial, it shall be conducted in accordance with fair methods and procedures to ensure the accuracy and objectivity of the measurement results, such as taking necessary measures in advance to prevent any error due to alcohol remaining in the mouth of the driver's mouth, and if the result of the measurement of alcohol is not obtained by such methods and procedures, it shall not be easily admitted as evidence of guilt (see Supreme Court Decision 201 August 21, 2008).