The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The sentence of sentence against the defendant shall be suspended.

1. On August 3, 2016, the summary of the grounds for appeal was 01:40 finally drinking on August 3, 2016, and was found to have been driven by drinking on August 13, 2016, and was found to have been 02:35 on August 13, 2016, which was six minutes thereafter, 02:41 on August 13, 2016, and the blood alcohol concentration level was 0.053%.

On August 13, 2016, the defendant raised an objection and measured blood on August 13, 2016, and as a result, the alcohol concentration in blood was 0.056%.

Although the Defendant’s detection of alcohol driving and measurement time of alcohol concentration in blood was at the time of increase in alcohol concentration in blood within 90 minutes from the final date of alcohol consumption.

In light of the fact that the time when the Defendant was exposed to alcohol driving and the time when the alcohol level was measured was 6 minutes from the blood, and according to the aforementioned dmark formula, the alcohol concentration in the blood during the hour can reduce to a maximum of 0.03%. However, it is not deemed that the blood alcohol concentration in the blood during six minutes after the detection of alcohol driving and measuring the alcohol concentration in the blood was increased to 0.03%. In light of the above dmark formula, it appears that the blood alcohol concentration in the blood during the Defendant’s driving was at least 0.05%.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged of this case is erroneous by misapprehending the legal principles, thereby affecting the conclusion of judgment.

2. Summary of the facts charged and the judgment of the court below

A. On August 13, 2016, the Defendant driven CA car under the influence of alcohol concentration of 0.056% in blood, from the distance of the campaign comments from Changwon-si, Changwon-si, Changwon-si to the front line of the same Gu-dong Do-dong Do-dong, to the same Gu-dong Do-dong Do-dong Do-dong Do-dong.

B. In light of the following circumstances, the lower court’s judgment: (a) evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone sufficient proof to the extent that the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol exceeding 0.05% of alcohol level at the time of driving.