The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of one million won.

If the above fine is not paid.

1. In full view of the summary of the grounds for appeal (the factual error and misunderstanding of legal principles), the defendant's drinking time, the drinking volume, the time between the drinking control point and the respiratory measurement, and the degree of blood alcohol concentration, etc., the defendant can be recognized as driving a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol above 0.05% at the time of the instant case.

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is under the influence of alcohol at around 23:50 on August 7, 2018, the Defendant driven Dworka car at approximately 2.4 km from the Changwon-si B Elementary School to the front road of the same Gu C building, while driving Dworka car at approximately 0.058% of alcohol level.

B. The lower court found the Defendant not guilty on the grounds that: (a) although the time difference between the end of operation and the start-up time of respiratory measurement does not exceed 10 minutes; (b) the blood alcohol concentration by the respiratory measurement is 0.058%, which is the punishment standard level; (c) it is difficult to determine whether the Defendant’s driving time is the point of increase of blood alcohol concentration; (c) it is in principle impossible to confirm the blood alcohol concentration at the time of driving by reverseing the blood alcohol concentration from the point of time of measuring the blood alcohol concentration by applying the above dmark formula; and (d) the statement in the statement in the state of the State-employed driverial affairs is seen as the Defendant around August 7, 2018, which is the date of the preparation of the above report; and (d) it cannot be ruled out that the Defendant’s blood alcohol concentration at the time was likely to have risen.

C. Comprehensively taking account of the following facts and circumstances that can be recognized by comprehensively taking account of the evidence adopted and examined by the lower court and the lower court, the fact that the Defendant driven a vehicle at the time and place indicated in the facts charged under the influence of alcohol content of 0.058%. Even if the Defendant was in a state of rise at the time, as alleged by the Defendant, at least 0.05% of blood alcohol content at the time of the completion of driving, even if the Defendant was in a state of rise as alleged by the Defendant.