The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal alleged that the Defendant 2 candle two cands after the instant accident, and the Defendant’s blood concentration of 0.162% in blood calculated in accordance with the above dmark formula was deducted from 0.237% in blood in accordance with the Defendant’s blood collection appraisal, based on the amount of alcohol claimed in favor of the Defendant after the instant accident, and determined the Defendant’s blood concentration of 0.075% in blood during the instant accident at the time of the instant accident.

In addition, there is no credibility in the defendant's assertion that he has dys of 1 cans of ben two times each week for 10 minutes after the accident of this case.

Therefore, the fact that the defendant was driving under the influence of alcohol level of 0.05% or more in blood was sufficiently proven.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the person who drives drinking, is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. On the grounds indicated in its reasoning, the lower court acquitted the Defendant of driving alcohol on the ground that it is difficult to readily conclude that the Defendant’s blood alcohol concentration at the time of the instant accident exceeds the punishment standard level solely based on the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor.

On the other hand, the burden of proof for the criminal facts prosecuted in a criminal trial is to be borne by the public prosecutor, and the conviction is to be based on the evidence with probative value sufficient for the judge to have a reasonable doubt that the facts charged are true, so if there is no such evidence, it shall be judged in the interest of the defendant even if there is any doubt for guilt against the defendant (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Do10096, Jun. 25, 2009, etc.). In addition, according to the circumstances indicated by the court below, the following circumstances, which are recognized by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, i.e., the defendant left the scene after the accident of this case, and returned to the scene of the accident of this case.