The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The defendant's blood alcohol level at the time of erroneous operation of the defendant's blood alcohol level should be based on the blood alcohol measurement level by the respiratory measuring apparatus measured at the time of operation, but the court below found the defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case where the blood measurement level due to the pulmonary measuring apparatus significantly differs from the respiratory measuring apparatus. The court below erred in the misapprehension of the rules of evidence, which affected the judgment

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (three million won of a fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts

A. The term "measurement" under Article 41 (2) of the Road Traffic Act means a method of measurement, i.e., the method of collecting respiratory and objectively converting the degree of taking alcohol from a driver dissatisfied with the result of measurement into the blood, with his/her consent, and, in other words, the method of measuring the degree of taking alcohol from the driver after taking the respiratory and objectively converting the degree of taking alcohol from the driver (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 99Do5210, Apr. 21, 200; 2001Do7121, Mar. 15, 200). However, in light of the following circumstances, whether to trust in the breath measurement through the breath test in a case where the breath test is different from the blood testing by a judge's free evaluation, it is deemed that there is a difference between the breath test and the breath test by an empirical rule and the degree of cooperation of the other party.