The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.

1. On October 9, 2013, the Defendant: (a) was under the influence of alcohol with blood alcohol content of 0.054% at around 06:32 on October 9, 2013; (b) was driving Category BM car from the Yeonsu apartment in Yeonsu-gu Incheon Metropolitan City to the roads of the same 937.

2. On October 9, 2013, the Defendant: around 06:32 on the road in Yeonsu-gu Incheon Metropolitan City, Yeonsu-gu, 937, caused an accident that shocks the extension of D urban bus. On the same day, the Defendant’s blood alcohol concentration was measured by 07:25%. The investigation agency calculated the Defendant’s blood alcohol concentration with 0.047% in accordance with the Hemark formula, “final drinking time: 05:00 on October 9, 2013; 06:32 on October 9, 2013; 07:07:0 on October 9, 2013; 07:04.0 on October 9, 2013; 07:047% on the blood alcohol concentration at the time of drinking measurement; 0.47% on the blood alcohol concentration at the time of drinking measurement; 05% on the Defendant’s blood alcohol concentration from 30 to 40% on the date of the accident reduction of 0-30% on May 9 to 8.

(See 29) However, in a case where an empirical rule, such as scientific public awareness, is used to find out the existence of the elements of crime, it is necessary to provide strict proof as to individual and specific facts that constitute the premise for the application of the rule of law. In the case of the Ba mark official, it is necessary to apply the said rule to the volume of alcohol taken in as data for the application thereof, drinking time, body weight, etc. Therefore, strict proof as to such premise is required (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Do5531, Aug. 21, 2008). If the blood alcohol concentration calculated by the Bamark official formula does not considerably exceed the degree permitted by the law, and it is merely a minor excess of the degree.