The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The gist of the grounds of appeal (the factual error) is that the Defendant’s blood alcohol concentration of the Defendant was 0.05% or more at the time of driving a vehicle, in light of the following: (a) the Defendant’s contact situation with the vehicle that the Defendant caused during drinking and the time of measuring alcohol level; (b) the Defendant’s speech and behavior after the accident; (c) the report on the circumstances of the drinking driver; and (d) the statement of E, at the time of measuring alcohol level; and (c) the Defendant began drinking from 19:00 to 23:00, when driving the vehicle.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged based on the records of the instant case, the lower court found the Defendant not guilty of the facts charged on the ground that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone was insufficient to prove that the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol above 0.05% during driving.

① From July 2, 2018 to 20:30 on July 2, 2018, the Defendant dump at least five residues by mixing the beer with the beer and the beer with the beer in a restaurant; thereafter, the Defendant dump dump by mixing the beer with the beer for about two hours from the point of singing to 22:30; and as a result of the repulmon measurement conducted at least one hour after the end drinking time, the Defendant was measured at 0.054% exceeding 0.05%, which is the standard subject of punishment for drunk driving under the Road Traffic Act.

② In light of the Defendant’s final drinking time, from 23:00 to 23:31 of the same day, the possibility that blood alcohol content might have been increased cannot be ruled out. The above respiratory measurement result was conducted after 23:00 to 31 minutes from the final driving point and at the time of traffic accident, and the Defendant’s blood alcohol concentration at the time of driving cannot be readily concluded as the result of blood alcohol measurement.