The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The judgment below acquitted the charged facts of this case on the ground that there is insufficient evidence to prove the crime, and the judgment below erred by misunderstanding facts for the following reasons and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

The Defendant stated in the police that he was drank at the 4th degree of alcohol prior to driving as stated in the facts charged, and the reporter G’s statement in this case constitutes reinforced evidence, so strict proof was given.

The Defendant repeatedly stated that drinking volume of alcohol after driving as indicated in the facts charged, 1st and 2th of a week, and D, the Defendant’s satisfin, stated as 1st and 2nd and 3th of a week, is not evidence to reinforce the Defendant’s statement or impeachment.

Therefore, the amount of drinking after driving should be recognized as 1 illness and 2 remaining after driving.

Since there is no special reason to apply 0.52 to the defendant 0.82, and the defendant also recognized that the police applied 0.86 to drinking water, the above-mark acceptance should be applied 0.86.

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is a person who drives a C salary class 3 cargo vehicle.

At around 14:00 on August 2, 2015, the Defendant driven the above vehicle at the section of about 3 km from the front of the tea pesticide company located in the Haak-gun of Chungcheongnambuk-gun, in the direction of 0.074% of blood alcohol level, to the front of the same 3km-ri 549-1 front of the Haak-ri of the same military, while under the influence of alcohol.

B. The lower court rendered a judgment on the grounds that there was no proof of crime regarding the facts charged in the instant case for the following legal principles and reasons.

【Related legal doctrine’s use of empirical rules, such as scientific tolerance, in order to find out the existence of the elements of crime, it requires strict proof of individual and specific facts, which are the premise for the application of the rule of law. In the case of the Badmark formula, it requires strict proof.