beta
Text
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. According to the Supreme Court Decision 201Do7121 Decided March 15, 2002 (Supreme Court Decision 2001Do7121 Decided March 15, 2002), in a case where the defendant raised an objection to the result of the pulmonary measurement after a considerable period of time from the pulmonary measurement and requested a measurement by the blood sampling method, it cannot be deemed a justifiable demand, and thus, a police officer is not obliged to conduct the pulmonary measurement
However, only two hours after the accident of this case occurred after the blood driving verification, and the defendant did not sign or affix a seal on the written consent to blood collection for the purpose of blood collection, and the defendant did not make a statement that he/she demanded a measurement by blood collection as a suspect on the date of the accident, and stated that he/she agreed with the police officer in charge of blood collection to conduct a measurement by again being investigated as a suspect after the date of the accident, and that he/she stated that he/she agreed with the police officer in charge of blood collection to conduct a measurement by blood collection.
shall not be deemed to exist.
Therefore, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged in this case, is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, even though the result of the pulmonary measuring instrument alone can be proved without using the blood measuring method.
2. Determination
A. On July 6, 2012, the Defendant: (a) around 03:20 on July 6, 2012, the summary of the facts charged in the instant case driven C sea-type vehicles under the influence of alcohol content of about 0.162% from the 1km section from the Seocho-gu Seoul Seocho-gu Fungdong to the roads of approximately 406 Mo-dong, Gangnam-gu, Seoul.
B. (1) The judgment of the court below is based on the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, although there are witness D and E’s statements, circumstantial statements of the driver, circumstantial statements of the driver, report on detection of the driver, and investigation reports (related to the application of the Ba mark) as evidence as shown in the facts charged of this case.