The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In this case’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, it is clearly confirmed that Defendant’s daily alcohol amount and drinking time is clearly identified, and when Defendant’s daily alcohol amount is assumed that Defendant’s daily alcohol amount 1/n dysing, the Defendant’s blood concentration in blood calculated exceeds 0.05%, which is the penalty standard value.

Therefore, comprehensively taking account of the circumstances supporting the Defendant’s drinking condition at the time of driving the instant case (such as the Defendant’s statement by the doctor in charge of treating the Defendant, medical records, direction-setting for left-hand turn, etc. while bypassing the Defendant’s statement, and the direction-setting for left-hand turn at the time of driving the instant accident, the Defendant’s act of demanding drinking after drinking, the Defendant’s act of hiding the police officer’s driver’s questions without reporting after driving the accident, the Defendant’s face color emitted from CCTV, the Defendant’s face color emitted from CCTV, the Defendant’s words “breathing” after driving the instant case, or the circumstances where the Defendant sent and sent the words “breathing” and “breathing at the time of driving the instant case,” it can be sufficiently recognized that the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol more than 0.05% in alcohol at the time of the instant case.

Nevertheless, the lower court did not have reasonable doubt that the Defendant had been under the influence of alcohol above the standard value of punishment at the time of driving of the instant case.

On the other hand, not guilty of the facts charged in violation of the Road Traffic Act (drinking driving).

In the lower judgment, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and misapprehending the legal doctrine.

B. The sentence (five million won in penalty) that the court below rendered by the court below on the ground that the sentencing was unfair is too uneasible and unfair.

2. Determination

A. (1) With respect to the assertion of misunderstanding of the relevant legal principles, if the driver’s blood or pulmonary sample is examined immediately after driving while driving the alcohol, the so-called dmark formula shall be used unless the driver’s blood or pulmonary sample can be measured.