Open Decision Ledger · Criminal law
Proving the blood alcohol concentration at the time of driving despite a time gap
Supreme Court, Dec. 11, 2025, 2025Do8137 (judgment)
Case name: 교통사고처리특례법위반(치상)·도로교통법위반(음주운전)
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
Where a breath test was taken some time after the driving ended and appears to have fallen in the rising phase of the blood alcohol concentration, must the prosecution always be unable to prove that the concentration exceeded the threshold for punishment while the defendant was driving, and how is the court to decide whether it did?
Holding
No. The Court held that such a time gap does not by itself always make proof of the concentration at the driving time impossible, and that whether the concentration was at or above the threshold for punishment while driving must be judged rationally, in accordance with logic and experience, on a weighing of the circumstances established by the evidence. On the facts here it held that, even allowing for the possibility that the test fell in the rising phase, a concentration of 0.03% or above at the time of driving accords with logic and experience.
Summary of the holding, verbatim
이러한 경우 운전 당시에도 처벌기준치 이상이었다고 볼 수 있는지는 운전과 측정 사이의 시간 간격, 측정된 혈중알코올농도의 수치와 처벌기준치의 차이, 음주를 지속한 시간 및 음주량, 단속 및 측정 당시 운전자의 행동 양상, 교통사고가 있었다면 그 사고의 경위 및 정황 등 증거에 의하여 인정되는 여러 사정을 종합적으로 고려하여 논리와 경험칙에 따라 합리적으로 판단하여야 한다.
Unofficial English translation
In such a case, whether it can be regarded as possible to find that the blood alcohol concentration was at or above the statutory threshold even at the time of driving must be reasonably determined, in accordance with logic and experience, by comprehensively considering the various circumstances established by the evidence, such as the time interval between the driving and the measurement, the difference between the measured blood alcohol concentration and the statutory threshold, the duration of drinking and the amount consumed, the driver's pattern of conduct at the time of the crackdown and measurement, and, if there was a traffic accident, the course and circumstances of that accident.
Disposition
Reversed and remanded Stated in the decision
원심판결을 파기하고, 사건을 창원지방법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Changwon District Court.
Form of the test
Circumstances weighed Stated in the decision
증거에 의하여 인정되는 여러 사정을 종합적으로 고려하여 논리와 경험칙에 따라 합리적으로 판단하여야 한다.
Unofficial English translation
It must be reasonably determined, in accordance with logic and experience, by comprehensively considering the various circumstances established by the evidence.
Factors
- 운전과 측정 사이의 시간 간격
- 측정된 혈중알코올농도의 수치와 처벌기준치의 차이
- 음주를 지속한 시간 및 음주량
- 단속 및 측정 당시 운전자의 행동 양상
- 교통사고가 있었다면 그 사고의 경위 및 정황
Unofficial English translation
• the time interval between the driving and the measurement
• the difference between the measured blood alcohol concentration and the statutory threshold
• the duration of drinking and the amount consumed
• the driver's pattern of conduct at the time of the crackdown and measurement
• if there was a traffic accident, the course and circumstances of that accident
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 2013. 10. 24. 선고 2013도6285 판결(공2013하, 2175), 대법원 2019. 7. 25. 선고 2018도6477 판결
Unofficial English translation
Supreme Court Decision 2013Do6285 decided October 24, 2013 (Gong 2013 Ha, 2175), Supreme Court Decision 2018Do6477 decided July 25, 2019
Decisions referred to
[1] 대법원 2013. 10. 24. 선고 2013도6285 판결(공2013하, 2175), 대법원 2019. 7. 25. 선고 2018도6477 판결
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
How long an interval between the end of the driving and the breath test would deprive the measured value of its evidentiary force, so that the circumstances the Court listed no longer suffice on their own?
The remand judgment of the Changwon District Court will show how the weighing test works on these facts. A later Supreme Court decision fixing a limit for the interval between driving and measurement, or an amendment to Article 44 or Article 148-2 of the Road Traffic Act, would call for this entry to be read again.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
8 of 8 axes matched GPT-6 Astra (OpenAI, codex CLI) · 2026-10-24
A reader from another model family (GPT-6 Astra), given the official text but not the primary reading, agreed on all 8 axes.
Raw responses and comparison record: Protocol · Blind readings (JSONL) · Axis comparison (JSONL) · SHA-256 (JSON)
Lower-court contrast & scope of application
Lower-court reading vs. Supreme Court holding
Lower-court context: The Changwon District Court, sitting on appeal, in its judgment of 13 May 2025 (2024No769), held that it was not proven beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant's blood alcohol concentration was 0.03% or above while driving, reversed the first-instance conviction on the Road Traffic Act drunk-driving charge and acquitted. It dismissed the charge under the Traffic Accident Treatment Special Act (personal injury) because the car the defendant drove was covered by comprehensive insurance.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court held that, even allowing for the possibility that the test fell in the rising phase of the concentration, a value of 0.03% or above at the time of driving accords with logic and experience. It held that the appellate court had misread the law on proving the blood alcohol concentration in drunk-driving cases, had failed to carry out the necessary examination and had breached the limits of the principle of free evaluation in a way that affected the judgment. It therefore reversed the judgment below and remanded the case to the Changwon District Court on the unanimous opinion of the participating Justices.
Distinguishing conditions
- A case in which the breath test was taken long after the driving ended, so that the interval of about 12 minutes the Court relied on is absent.
- A case in which special circumstances show that the measured value did not represent the concentration at the time of driving, since the Court treated the result as the driving-time concentration only where there are no such circumstances.
- A case in which the defendant objected to the breath reading or asked for a blood re-test, or in which the police did not follow their ordinary drunk-driving enforcement procedure.
Record verification notes
Set the file against each of the five circumstances the Court listed, starting with the exact interval between the end of the driving and the test and the difference between the measured 0.037% and the 0.03% threshold. Record how long and how much the defendant drank, the defendant's manner at the stop and the test, and the course and circumstances of the accident, since the Court weighed these together. Keep in view Articles 44(1) and 44(4) and Article 148-2(3)(iii) of the Road Traffic Act and Article 308 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and note that this entry reflects the case as it stood on remand.
From the official text
Points at issue
[1] 운전 시점과 혈중알코올농도의 측정 시점 사이에 시간 간격이 있고 그때가 혈중알코올농도의 상승기로 보인다는 사정만으로 언제나 실제 운전 시점의 혈중알코올농도가 처벌기준치를 초과한다는 점에 대한 증명이 불가능하다고 볼 수 있는지 여부(소극) 및 이때 운전 당시에도 처벌기준치 이상이었다고 볼 수 있는지 판단하는 기준 [2] 피고인이 혈중알코올농도 0.037%의 술에 취한 상태에서 자동차를 운전하다가 안전하게 운전하여야 할 업무상 주의의무를 게을리하여 갑이 운전하던 오토바이와 충돌하여 갑에게 상해를 입게 하였다는 도로교통법 위반(음주운전) 등의 공소사실로 기소된 사안에서, 피고인에 대한 혈중알코올농도 측정 방법과 절차는 경찰의 통상적인 음주단속에 따른 것이고 운전 종료 시점으로부터 불과 약 12분 후에 측정된 점 등에 비추어, 비록 피고인의 음주측정 시점이 혈중알코올농도 상승기에 있을 가능성이 있다는 사정을 감안하더라도 운전 당시 혈중알코올농도 수치가 0.03% 이상이었다고 보는 것이 논리와 경험칙에 부합한다고 한 사례
Unofficial English translation
[1] Whether, merely because there is a time interval between the time of driving and the time at which the blood alcohol concentration was measured and that time appears to have been during the period of rising blood alcohol concentration, it cannot be regarded as possible to prove that the blood alcohol concentration at the time of actual driving exceeded the statutory threshold (negative), and the criteria for determining whether the blood alcohol concentration was at or above the statutory threshold even at the time of driving / [2] A case in which the defendant was prosecuted on charges including a violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving under the influence of alcohol), namely that, while driving an automobile in an intoxicated state with a blood alcohol concentration of 0.037%, the defendant breached the duty of care in the course of business to drive safely, collided with a motorcycle driven by A, and thereby caused injury to A, where, given that the method and procedure for measuring the defendant's blood alcohol concentration were those of the police's ordinary crackdown on drunk driving and that the measurement was taken a mere approximately 12 minutes after the end of driving, and the like, it was consistent with logic and experience to find that the blood alcohol concentration at the time of driving was 0.03% or higher, even taking into account the circumstance that the time of the defendant's alcohol test may have fallen within the period of rising blood alcohol concentration
Summary of the holding
[1] 운전 시점과 혈중알코올농도의 측정 시점 사이에 시간 간격이 있고 그때가 혈중알코올농도의 상승기로 보이는 경우라고 하더라도, 그러한 사정만으로 언제나 실제 운전 시점의 혈중알코올농도가 처벌기준치를 초과한다는 점에 대한 증명이 불가능하다고 볼 수는 없다. 이러한 경우 운전 당시에도 처벌기준치 이상이었다고 볼 수 있는지는 운전과 측정 사이의 시간 간격, 측정된 혈중알코올농도의 수치와 처벌기준치의 차이, 음주를 지속한 시간 및 음주량, 단속 및 측정 당시 운전자의 행동 양상, 교통사고가 있었다면 그 사고의 경위 및 정황 등 증거에 의하여 인정되는 여러 사정을 종합적으로 고려하여 논리와 경험칙에 따라 합리적으로 판단하여야 한다. [2] 피고인이 혈중알코올농도 0.037%의 술에 취한 상태에서 자동차를 운전하다가 안전하게 운전하여야 할 업무상 주의의무를 게을리한 채 차로를 변경함으로써 갑이 운전하던 오토바이와 충돌하여 갑에게 상해를 입게 하였다는 도로교통법 위반(음주운전) 등의 공소사실로 기소된 사안에서, 피고인은 2023. 10. 9. 18:10경까지 술을 마신 이후 약 30m가량 자동차를 운전하다가 같은 날 18:18경 교통사고를 일으켰으며, 같은 날 18:30경 음주측정을 한 결과 혈중알코올농도 0.037%로 측정된 점, 피고인은 사고 현장에 출동한 경찰관의 안내에 따라 생수로 입안을 헹구고 호흡측정기를 불어 음주측정을 하였고, 측정 당시 피고인이 호흡측정결과의 수치에 이의를 제기하거나 채혈을 통한 재측정을 요구하지 않은 점, 피고인에 대한 혈중알코올농도 측정 방법과 절차는 경찰의 통상적인 음주단속에 따른 것이고 운전 종료 시점으로부터 불과 약 12분 후에 측정된 점 등에 비추어, 비록 피고인의 음주측정 시점이 혈중알코올농도 상승기에 있을 가능성이 있다는 사정을 감안하더라도 운전 당시 혈중알코올농도 수치가 0.03% 이상이었다고 보는 것이 논리와 경험칙에 부합하다는 이유로, 이와 달리 본 원심판단에 음주운전에서의 혈중알코올농도 증명 등에 관한 법리를 오해하는 등의 잘못이 있다고 한 사례.
Order
원심판결을 파기하고, 사건을 창원지방법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Changwon District Court.
Provisions referred to
[1] 도로교통법 제44조 제1항, 제4항, 제148조의2 제3항, 형사소송법 제308조 / [2] 도로교통법 제44조 제1항, 제4항, 제148조의2 제3항 제3호, 형사소송법 제308조
Read 2026-10-24 · Cross-read 2026-10-24. All quotes matched against the official text. The Chinese-character placeholders the court used for anonymised parties are given in their Korean readings, and parenthetical Chinese-character glosses are omitted.
Every entry is published only after all quotes have been matched character by character against the official text, and audited by an independent second reading from a different model family across all eight axes. Both agreed axes and text-grounded interpretive divergences are recorded openly. The ledger is a research record, not an assessment of the court or advice on any matter.
Back to the ledger