The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (legal scenarios) is true that the defendant drives the alcohol at the time of the instant case.

However, at the time of pulmonary measurement, the defendant had risen alcohol concentration in blood.

Therefore, only fact that the defendant's blood alcohol concentration from pulmonary measurement was 0.12%, it cannot be viewed that the defendant was driving under the blood alcohol concentration of more than 0.1%.

Therefore, Article 148-2 (2) 2 (not less than 0.1% but less than 0.2%) of the Road Traffic Act should be applied to the defendant, not subparagraph 3 (not less than 0.05% but less than 0.1%).

2. In light of the following circumstances revealed through the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the court below sufficiently recognizes the fact that the defendant was driving in the state with a blood alcohol content of at least 0.1%, and therefore, it cannot be deemed that the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the judgment below that applied Article 148-2 (2) 2 of the Road Traffic Act to the defendant.

Ultimately, the defendant's assertion is without merit.

By May 31, 2018, the Defendant drank one disease (e.g., fresh, 360mL, and 17.2% of alcohol) in soften (the Defendant’s consistent assertion) by May 23, 2018, and the Defendant 23:15 on the same day was discovered to a police officer who was under the influence of alcohol at a point where 200 meters elapsed since the start of driving a motor vehicle at a dormitory where he was living, and the blood alcohol concentration of the Defendant was 0.12% from the b3:21 on the same day.

The pulmonary measuring instrument used for the pulmonary measurement was normally operated, and no error was found thereafter.

Police officers, who controlled the defendant by drinking driving, have the defendant put the drafting on the water before the respiratory test to put the defendant into place his/her place of business.

There are no circumstances to suspect that the pulmonary measurement has not been performed in accordance with the fair method and procedure.

B. The circumstantial statement of a drinking driver prepared by a police officer who controlled Defendant by drinking driving: Snicking in his/her entrance.