The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

Contrary to the provisions of the Medical Service Act, the Emergency Medical Service Act, and the Medical Technicians Act, etc., an emergency medical technician D, who is not qualified to collect blood, requested the measurement of blood alcohol concentration after collecting the blood of the defendant. As such, the blood of the defendant taken as above, cannot be used as evidence pursuant to Article 308-2 of the Criminal Procedure Act, which is illegal evidence collected without due process

The Defendant’s final drinking time is around 23:47 on July 13, 2013. Generally, the blood alcohol content reaches a peremptory notice by raising about 30-90 minutes after drinking. As such, the Defendant’s blood alcohol content at around 01:17 through 01:18 on July 14, 2013 is the Defendant’s blood alcohol concentration at the highest level. The Defendant’s blood collection to the Defendant was made at around 01:18 on the upper blood alcohol concentration at around 01:18, the Defendant’s final drinking time (49 minutes) from the final drinking time to the date of collecting blood content (9 minutes), and thus, the presumption that the blood content at the time of operation exceeded 10:50% by multiplying the blood content measured after dividing the final drinking alcohol content from the blood alcohol concentration at 14:06 on July 14, 2013) by the hours of collecting blood content (91 minutes). Thus, the presumption that the blood content at the time of operation was punished by 2010.50%

On July 14, 2013, 01:00, the blood alcohol content based on the pulmonary measurement conducted against the Defendant is 0.072%, and on July 14, 2013, the blood alcohol content based on the blood collection measurement conducted on July 14, 2013 is 0.058%, and it is difficult to believe that the blood alcohol content is 0.058%, and it is 20 minutes.

Judgment

The judgment of the court below on whether an emergency medical technician was collected from the assertion that there was no admissibility of evidence as evidence of unlawful collection, and the following circumstances revealed in the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this court, i.e., the report on blood collection of drinking drivers, appears to have signed to the effect that E was collected from the nurse of the H Hospital emergency department, and ii) the Defendant’s landed D did not collect the blood from the Defendant in the court of the court of the court below.