The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant shall be innocent.

1. Summary of the facts charged

A. On June 2, 2013, at around 00:05, the Defendant driven a Cchier vehicle with the alcohol concentration of 0.239% in the main condition of blood alcohol content, and proceeded toward the 1-lane road in front of the 477-lane, Bupyeong-gu, Incheon, Bupyeong-gu, Incheon, as the upstream of the 477-lane of the new apartment. At the same time, the Defendant is in the vicinity of the intersection, and at the night, the person engaged in driving service had the duty of care to reduce the speed and to ensure the safe driving by taking into account the right and the right and the right and the right of the vehicle.

Nevertheless, the Defendant neglected to stop and concealed the Drast vehicle, EM5 vehicle, F rocketing taxi vehicle, which was standing in the signal waiting at one-lane, immediately went beyond the center line in the direction that was going to go back by the left, after going through approximately 1-2 meters back immediately, and going beyond the center line in the direction that was going to go back again in the original direction, and came to go beyond the center line in the direction that was going to go back, and the Defendant continued to stop at the 2, 3, and 4-lane-stop-stop vehicle, which was going to stop in the signal waiting line.

Ultimately, the Defendant inflicted injury on the victim J, K, and L for each of the above occupational negligence, such as catitis, etc., which requires approximately two weeks of medical treatment on the victim M, N,O, P, Q, R, and S, respectively.

B. On June 2, 2013, at around 00:05, the Defendant driven a Cchip vehicle at approximately 1-3km from the area near Bupyeong-gu Incheon Bupyeong-dong market to the front of the new apartment of about 477, Dong-dong, Dong-dong, Bupyeong-gu, Incheon, with a blood alcohol content of 0.239% from the area of approximately 1-3km to the new apartment of the same Gu.

2. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In light of the fact-finding and misunderstanding of legal principles, the police officer’s demand for the measurement of blood collection again after taking a pulmonary measurement against the Defendant is unlawful and the Defendant has consented to the measurement of blood collection in a strong atmosphere. As such, the result of the measurement of blood collection is inadmissible, and there was no lot of alcohol, and thus, it cannot be recognized as a drinking water level due to the measurement of blood

(b).