The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant used the oral cleaning system immediately before the measurement of alcohol was conducted, and the blood alcohol concentration level cannot be recognized.

B. The police officer in charge did not inform the police officer of his/her demand for a measurement based on the collection of blood, and the defendant demanded that the police officer in charge be able to conduct a measurement based on the collection of blood late, but the police officer in charge neglected it.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the court below, the defendant did not use the oral clean system at the time of the measurement of alcohol according to the breath measurement method, and responded to the measurement of alcohol after the fluence rate after the fluence rate.

On the other hand, the Defendant alleged that “the blood collection result from the blood collection method that the Defendant visited a hospital at around 04:10 on March 5, 2014, when the degree of approximately 3 hours and 40 minutes was approximately 04:10 minutes, and that the blood alcohol concentration in the blood was 0.01%, supporting the Defendant’s assertion.” However, it cannot be ruled out that the Defendant’s blood collection method that the Defendant arbitrarily found the hospital was involved in artificial manipulation or related party’s negligence during the process of collecting or testing blood, such as where the procedure for verifying the recipient’s identity is not strict. Thus, the Defendant’s aforementioned determination cannot be ruled out.

A. The allegation in this paragraph is rejected.

(b) There is a duty to inform a driver who fails to comply with the measurement by the respiratory tester that the police officer has a method of measurement by blood collection and ask him/her whether or not he/she has selected it;

No matter how to demand blood collection can be said to be justifiable (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Do4220, Oct. 25, 2002). The defendant's above person cannot be viewed as legitimate demand for blood collection only after 2 hours from the time when the defendant measured the pulmonary test and then did not raise any objection to the result of the pulmonary test.

B. The assertion of the claim also is reasonable.