Punishment for Drunk Driving | A District Court Judgment Holding That a Blood Alcohol Concentration Measured Long After the Time of Driving Is Not Valid

A, who stood trial in connection with punishment for drunk driving, was charged with driving 50 meters while intoxicated at a blood alcohol concentration of 0.121%.

On the day of the incident, after finishing work, A purchased soju, beer, and other items at a nearby store, drove to the parking location, and drank inside the car. A stated that the trash from the alcohol and side dishes was placed in a bag and tossed onto the floor of the back seat.

However, the police officers who responded to the scene following a report by a bystander countered that they had not found any liquor bottles in the back seat, and they asserted that, upon reviewing the vehicle's dashcam, there was no footage confirming A buying alcohol and getting into the car.

At the trial of the first instance, the police officers testified that A had been rambling incoherently, stating, “A was so intoxicated that A could not wake up for a long time even when roused, and during a brief exchange A retracted his statements, such as saying he had drunk with dinner when asked whether he had been drinking.”

Relying on this testimony, the court of the first instance imposed a fine of 9 million won on A, and A, dissatisfied with this, filed an appeal.

The appellate court of the second instance, which handled the appeal relating to punishment for drunk driving, accepted A's appeal asserting a mistake of fact by the court of the first instance, which had returned a guilty verdict.

The appellate court of the second instance held that A's blood alcohol concentration measurement, which had been lawfully admitted at the first instance, was invalid.

Because A's blood alcohol concentration at that time was measured 186 minutes after the last time of driving, the court found that it could not be recognized as the blood alcohol concentration at the time of driving.

In addition, the court determined that, although the fact that the vehicle's engine and lights were on at the time A was caught might suggest the possibility that A had fallen asleep after driving, this was also a circumstance that could be sufficiently explained by A's assertion that he had drunk alcohol and eaten side dishes inside the car after stopping and then fallen asleep.

Accordingly, the appellate court of the second instance reversed the judgment of the first instance and rendered an acquittal for A.

In connection with punishment for drunk driving, we analyzed a District Court judgment that rendered an acquittal on the ground that a blood alcohol concentration measured three hours after driving is not valid.

Similarly, there are also cases in which a person stands trial after being caught in a drunk-driving crackdown while 🔗hangover driving the day after drinking.

As with hangover driving, where a considerable amount of time has passed after a drunk-driving offense so that the driver has sobered up, or the blood alcohol concentration has dropped below the threshold level, the charge is applied by calculating the blood alcohol concentration using the “Widmark formula for estimating blood alcohol concentration,” which takes into account the actual time of drinking and the time of driving. This formula may instead be used to advantage in asserting an acquittal for drunk driving.

Therefore, if you face the risk of punishment for drunk driving, rather than blindly denying the charge, it is advisable to respond objectively and in an informed manner by making use of the Widmark formula and similar methods, and in this process the assistance of an attorney experienced in drunk-driving matters can help you respond more readily.

Daeryun Law Firm LLP operates a 🔗Drunk Driving and Traffic Accident Response Group and works diligently to assist in defending clients who face the risk of punishment for drunk driving.

If you need assistance in this regard, you are welcome to request a legal consultation with Daeryun Law Firm LLP at any time.