The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts) is that the Defendant’s blood content of 0.050% of alcohol content among the blood of the Defendant stated in the facts charged of this case is measured after four minutes from the time when the Defendant was driving, and if considering that the Defendant’s blood content in the Defendant’s blood was risen at the time of driving, the Defendant’s blood content at the time of driving was the same.

It is difficult to readily conclude.

2. Determination

A. The Defendant, around September 7, 2015, driven a C-learning car under the influence of alcohol content of about 500 meters from the section of approximately 500 meters from the front of the Dong Rock-dong, Incheon, Bupyeong-gu to the front road of the same 448-dong Rock.

B. The lower court determined that the Defendant’s blood alcohol concentration at the time of driving based on the circumstances set forth in its reasoning can be viewed as 0.050%.

Based on the judgment of the court, the charges were convicted.

(c)

The alcohol concentration in blood in the judgment of the party was more than the standard level of punishment at the time of driving.

Whether it can be seen or not shall be determined reasonably in accordance with logical and empirical rules, comprehensively taking into account various circumstances acknowledged by evidence, such as the distance between driving and measurement, the difference between the value of alcohol content and the standard value of punishment, the hours during which drinking continues, the level of behavior of the driver at the time of crackdown and measurement, and the situation of the accident if there is a traffic accident, etc. (see Supreme Court Decision 2013Do6285, Oct. 24, 2013, etc.). According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, from around September 21, 2015 to around 22:30, the Defendant made a statement from around 21:20 on the police day to around 22:30 on the same day that he/she has dice at the time between 21:20 on the same day and 22:30 on the same day to the extent that he/she has dice at the time between 20 to 227:30 on the same day.