[Uijeongbu Drunk Driving Lawyer Non-Referral Case] Non-Referral Decision Obtained With the Help of a Uijeongbu Drunk Driving Lawyer

The client who consulted the Uijeongbu drunk driving lawyer met with acquaintances, had one or two drinks at a bar at the acquaintances' urging, and drove home, but the client was not intoxicated at all,

The client parked in front of the house and began drinking more inside the home. After 40 to 50 minutes, a neighborhood resident reported the matter, the police came to the home and requested a breath test, and the client complied with the test at that time.

The blood alcohol concentration at that time came out at 0.19, a level falling within the punishment threshold.

Because the client had already consumed more alcohol at home, the client felt the situation was unfair and requested the help of a Daeryun Law Firm Uijeongbu drunk driving lawyer to respond.

• Road Traffic Act Article 44 (Prohibition of Driving While Intoxicated)
• 
  (1) No person may drive a motor vehicle, etc. (including construction machinery other than the construction machinery under the proviso to Article 26 (1) of the Construction Machinery Management Act; the same shall apply in this Article, Article 45, Article 47, Article 93 (1) 1 through 4, and Article 148-2), a tram, or a bicycle while intoxicated.
• 
  (3) A driver who objects to the result of the measurement under paragraph (2) may, with the driver's consent, be measured again by a method such as the collection of blood.
• 
  (4) The standard for the intoxicated state in which driving is prohibited under paragraph (1) shall be a case in which the driver's blood alcohol concentration is 0.03 percent or higher.

The Uijeongbu drunk driving lawyer argued that the suspect drank about 2 glasses at the bar until 23:30, and that the suspect drove his own vehicle home at around 00:00.

The lawyer further argued that the suspect drank more alcohol at home and that the breath test was conducted at around 00:57, about 1 hour apart from the time the suspect actually drove the vehicle, so that, because no breath test was conducted at the time of driving, an inaccurate measurement had been applied.

The Uijeongbu drunk driving lawyer argued that the blood alcohol concentration measurement of 0.19% was a measurement taken after the suspect returned home and drank more soju and beer,

and that, recognizing that the suspect had drunk more alcohol at home, a calculation using the Widmark formula would show that the blood alcohol concentration did not fall within the punishment threshold.

The Uijeongbu drunk driving lawyer argued that, although the suspect did not drive while intoxicated beyond the punishment threshold,

the suspect was remorseful about having driven after drinking even a small amount of alcohol, regardless of the measurement. The lawyer also pledged that the suspect would never drive while intoxicated again and appealed for lenient treatment.