The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds of appeal in this case, in full view of the following facts: (a) even if the Defendant applied the most favorable acceptance to the Defendant when calculating the Defendant’s blood alcohol concentration at the time of driving in accordance with the aforementioned dmark formula, the blood alcohol concentration is calculated to 0.08%; (b) the Defendant’s boom image of the Defendant’s vehicle can be confirmed to have driven very unstable at the time of the instant case; and (c) the Defendant stated that he was dykeing up to twice per week in addition to the first time immediately after driving, and reversed the Defendant’s statement that he was dykeing at the time of statement in the court of the lower court, it can be sufficiently recognized that the Defendant was driving a motor vehicle under the influence of at least 0.05% of alcohol concentration in blood at the time of the instant case.

However, the court below found the defendant not guilty on the ground that there was no proof of crime as to the violation of road traffic law due to drinking driving among the facts charged in this case by denying the reliability of the method of calculating alcohol concentration among the blood transfusions according to the above dmark formula. The court below erred by misunderstanding the facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged by the lower judgment on September 29, 2017: (a) around 13:30 on September 29, 2017, the Defendant driven a motor vehicle with low alcohol content of at least 0.05% in alcohol, from approximately 2 km section to the front road of the community center of the Nungjin-gun, which is located in the Dong-gun, Namjin-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, and the front road of the parking lot of the E office located in D.

B. The judgment of the court below asserts that the defendant parked a vehicle in the parking lot of the E office, and then breath from the Fuser in front of the parking, so he did not have a drinking alcohol driving.

On September 29, 2017, after receiving a report that a contact accident occurred at the parking lot of the E office, the police conducted a drinking measurement against the defendant on September 14:48, 2017, and the alcohol concentration in blood was 0.170%, and the defendant was 13:30% on the same day as the time the contact accident occurred.