The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. The police officer, who has called to the site of the main reason for appeal, notifies the accused at the time of the instant case that he may take a drinking test by blood collection, but the accused has failed to comply with it, and the driver who is dissatisfied with the result of the respiratory measurement under the Road Traffic Act may take a drinking test again by blood collection method with his consent

In addition, it does not stipulate that blood sampling must be measured, and the defendant drank alcohol until 24:00 on the day immediately before the accident occurred and drank alcohol immediately before the accident.

Comprehensively taking account of the fact that there was no talking, the defendant did not exercise an opportunity to measure drinking by blood collection, and the defendant did not have a measurement of drinking by blood collection.

Even if the result of the drinking test of this case is reliable, the defendant's proof of the drinking driving of this case is proved.

I would like to say.

Nevertheless, the court below held that the defendant was driving under the influence of 0.054%.

It is difficult to conclude it.

For this reason, the defendant was acquitted on the occurrence of traffic accidents caused by drinking driving or drinking driving. The judgment of the court below is erroneous as a misunderstanding of facts.

2. Determination

A. In each of the facts charged in relation to the part not guilty in the original trial (including not guilty of reasoning), the prosecutor made an application for changes in the indictment with respect to “0.054% of alcohol level in blood transfusion” above 0.05%, and this court granted permission. In this regard, the part of the judgment of the court below, which is premised on the initial indictment due to changes in the subject matter of the trial, cannot be maintained any longer.

However, the prosecutor's assertion of mistake on the pertinent part still remains to the extent that it does not conflict with the above reasons for reversal, despite the fact that there was an ex officio reversal.