The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles) The Supreme Court precedents pertaining to the aforementioned dmark formula apply to cases where there is a time interval between the driving point and the drinking measurement point. As in the instant case, if there is only two-third interval between the Defendant’s driving point and the drinking measurement point, it is unreasonable to deem the alcohol concentration in the blood measured on the ground that the drinking measurement point is an increase in the alcohol concentration in the blood while driving.

2. Examining the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below in light of the records, a thorough examination of the records reveals that, based on the evidence and determination of legal principles as indicated in the judgment of the court below, in this case where the point at which the driving was completed and the point at which the alcohol level was measured is lower than the blood concentration among the blood that was measured at the time of driving, the blood alcohol concentration at the time of the defendant's driving was higher than 0.05%, and thus, the blood alcohol concentration at the time of his driving was higher than the blood concentration at the time of his/her driving.

On the ground that it cannot be readily determined, the early stage that judged not guilty of the facts charged in this case is justified, and there was no new evidence that corresponds to the facts charged in this case in the trial of the party, and the Supreme Court precedents related to the above dmark formula do not apply to the purport that where at least the point of operation is highly likely to increase alcohol concentration during blood, it is impossible to confirm the degree of alcohol concentration during blood at the point of operation by applying the above dmark formula, and it is not applied only when there is an interval between the point of time and the point of time at which alcohol is measured. Thus, there was an error of misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles as argued by the Prosecutor

It does not seem that it does not appear.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the prosecutor's appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.