The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The collection of blood against the defendant was conducted with the consent of the defendant.

The Defendant’s legal statement that did not consent to blood collection is difficult to believe in light of the content of the statement in the investigative agency.

In full view of the statements of the witness of the court below and relevant evidence, the facts charged of this case can be fully acknowledged.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and acquitted the Defendant.

2. The lower court determined that the instant blood collection was conducted under the Defendant’s consent, taking into account the following: (a) the scope of the police officer’s written consent to blood collection; (b) the background of the Defendant’s name prior to his opening; (c) the Defendant’s status at the time; and (d) the circumstance that

Since it is difficult to see that the warrant was not issued later, it was judged that the response to the request for appraisal of alcohol concentration among blood produced on the basis of the blood gathered so that it is not admissible.

In addition, the defendant was acquitted on the ground that other evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone cannot be deemed sufficient proof of the facts charged of this case.

Considering the evidence duly adopted after examining the evidence and the reasoning of the judgment below, the judgment of the court below is just and it cannot be found that the mistake of fact is unlawful.

The Prosecutor’s argument on the grounds of appeal is rejected.

3. Conclusion, the Prosecutor’s appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.