The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The court below found the defendant's blood alcohol concentration as 0.116% on the basis of a reply to an appraisal request with no credibility.

B. The sentence of unfair sentencing (six months of imprisonment and one year of suspended execution) of the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The Defendant and his defense counsel argued that this part of the appeal is the same as the argument in this part of the judgment of the court below. Accordingly, the court below rejected the Defendant’s claim that 0.116%, which is the blood alcohol concentration measured by the method of blood collection, was higher than 0.065%, which is the blood alcohol concentration measured by the pulmonary examination method (0.78% (0.116/065) or injury (0.05% (=116-0655). Thus, the difference in the value is merely 0.051% (0.116-0.065). Thus, the Defendant’s blood content measured by the method of blood collection, was not so large that the probative value of the blood alcohol concentration measured by the pulmon examination of the Defendant, the measurement by blood collection, and the examination request by the National Police Agency for blood collection and storage, and the Defendant’s blood containing or the Defendant’s blood containing 10% cannot be found at the time of this case’s crime.

According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the above judgment of the court below is just and it does not seem that there was an error of misconception of facts as alleged by the defendant as the grounds for appeal.

This part of the defendant's assertion is not accepted.

B. The instant crime of determining unreasonable sentencing is the Defendant’s driving of a car at a distance of about 3 km under the influence of around 00:30 on September 18, 2012, while under the influence of alcohol 0.116% on blood alcohol level, and the crime is the nature of the instant crime.