The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the Defendant was unable to measure drinking through a drinking gauge due to an accident at the time of the appeal, and in light of the fact that the police officer in charge forced to measure drinking, failed to hear the notification of blood collection, and the Defendant was unable to measure drinking due to the normal respiratory level at the time, and that the blood alcohol content was also mistakenly stated in the report on detection of drinking drivers, but the judgment below which found the Defendant guilty of the charges of this case, erred by misunderstanding of facts or misapprehending of legal principles.

2. The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below: (a) the defendant was sent to an emergency room at a nearby hospital due to traffic accident; (b) the police officer in charge visited the defendant at the time to check whether drinking was drinking; (c) notified the defendant to take a drinking test; and (d) the police officer in charge took a drinking test to take a drinking test; and (c) the defendant showed the result of the drinking test at the time of the drinking test; (d) the police officer in charge stated that the defendant and his wife did not want blood collection; and (e) the police officer stated that the defendant did not want blood collection; (e) the police officer in charge returned to the police station and made a report on detection (Evidence No. 15 of the Record) according to the above drinking test result (However, in light of the police officer in charge's phone call to the defendant's wife to obtain signature at the time of detection; and (e) the police officer did not obtain the Defendant's signature from the police officer in charge due to drinking-related documents.

It is difficult to deem that the report on detection of a host driver has been made by falsity.

Therefore, the defendant's blood alcohol concentration 0.0.