The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact, the Defendant’s blood concentration is 0.057% at the time of measurement of alcohol concentration in the blood by means of pulmonary measurement around May 18, 2016, and 0.054% at the time of measurement of alcohol concentration in the blood by means of blood extraction around 22:05. In general, in light of the fact that blood concentration concentration in the blood is high compared to the respiratory measurement method, the Defendant’s blood concentration in around 22:05 is judged to have come under the lower alcohol level. At any time, it is difficult to determine that the Defendant’s blood concentration in the blood reached the highest level. Even if the Defendant’s blood concentration in the blood at any time falls under the highest level of alcohol concentration in the blood, it is difficult to view that the Defendant and the Defendant did not have any proof of 0.5% at the time of an accident, such as 30 minutes prior to his/her blood concentration in the blood, and that the Defendant did not have any 0.5% or more of alcohol concentration in the blood.

In light of the fact that the defendant had made a traffic accident (hereinafter "traffic accident of this case") at the time of the accident after the lapse of 90 minutes more than the time when the drinking place was commenced, in view of the fact that there was a high possibility that the alcohol concentration in the blood of the defendant had already reached the summer, the defendant had caused the traffic accident (hereinafter "traffic accident of this case") and the alcohol concentration in the blood at the time of the accident exceeded 0.05%, which is the punishment standard value.

It is sufficient to accept the recognition.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant on the violation of the Traffic Act on the road and dismissed the prosecution on the violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents on the premise that the driving of drinking is not guilty.

2. The judgment of the court below

A. The lower court acknowledged the following facts based on the duly admitted and investigated evidence.