Not guilty on second drunk driving charge?... ‘Failure to meet punishment standards’

Widmark formula, applied to calculate blood alcohol concentration at the time of drunk driving

It is not possible to determine whether the blood alcohol content exceeds the penalty limit at the time of actual drunk driving.

At the time of arrest, the blood alcohol level was elevated... Emphasizes that it was probably lower at the time of driving

A man in his 40s who had a history of being punished for drunk driving drove drunk again, but was found not guilty by applying the Widmark formula, which back-estimates the blood alcohol concentration at the time.

On the 12th, the Cheongju District Court's Chungju branch found Mr. A (42) not guilty, who was put on trial on charges of violating the Road Traffic Act (drunk driving).

Mr. A was caught behind the wheel by a police officer conducting a drunken driving inspection on the spot after drinking alcohol while on a trip with his family last January. At the time of arrest, Mr. A was found to have a blood alcohol content of 0.030%, which was at the level of a suspended license.

It was confirmed that Mr. A had a history of being punished for similar crimes. Under the current law, if a fine or more is imposed due to drunk driving, the punishment is aggravated.

At the trial, Mr. A's legal representative, Daeryun Law Firm (Yuhan), argued that it could not be concluded that the drunk driving punishment standard (0.03%) was exceeded by applying the Widmark formula, which reversely estimates the blood alcohol concentration at the time of drunk driving.

It is assumed that at the time of measurement, it had reached a rising level and that the blood alcohol concentration was lower than the measured value at the time of actual driving.

Regarding the reason for the not guilty verdict, the court explained, "When applying the Weedmark formula, which is a scientifically proven fact, the defendant has a blood alcohol concentration of 0.03%, which is the punishment standard for drunk driving prescribed by Article 148-2, Paragraph 3, Item 3 and Article 44, Paragraph 1 of the Road Traffic Act. The indictment in this case corresponds to a time when there is no proof of a crime."

Attorney Gil Se-cheol of Daeryun Law Firm (Limited) explained, “The Widmark breathalyzer formula is a technique to calculate the blood alcohol concentration at the time of drunk driving when a lot of time has passed since the drunk driving and the driver has sobered up or is below the limit,” and added, “The driver’s weight, gender, type of alcohol consumed, and amount of alcohol consumed are all taken into consideration to calculate the state of intoxication at the time.”

He continued, “Because the alcohol breakdown value per hour varies depending on the individual, if you are somewhat unfairly caught for drunk driving, you must use this method to prove that your blood alcohol concentration was rising at the time of the alcohol test.” He added, “This case can also be said to be an example of using the Widmark formula to back-estimate the blood alcohol concentration and prove that it did not meet the punishment standard of 0.03% at the time of driving.”

[View full article] - Not guilty on second drunk driving charge?... ‘Failure to meet punishment standards’ (Shortcut)