Judge Rules in Favor of Driver with BAC of 0.039%, Citing Time Lapse and Alcohol Absorption

A man in his 50s was acquitted of drunk driving charges despite having a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of 0.039%.

The court ruled that, given the rise in alcohol concentration over time, it was possible that he did not exceed the legal limit for driving under the influence.

On Sunday, Judge Kim Kyung Chan of the Cheongju District Court confirmed the defendant’s acquittal of charges under South Korea’s Road Traffic Act.

The defendant was accused of driving approximately 5 kilometers (about 3 miles) from Jungheung-ro to Gangseo-dong in Cheongju between 12:07 AM and 12:14 AM on April 30 of the previous year.

The defendant said he drank three small glasses of makgeolli (a traditional Korean rice wine) during a tasting session at his brewery. Afterward, he waited for the effects of the alcohol to subside before driving home.

The court concluded that it could not rule out the possibility that his BAC did not exceed the legal threshold of 0.03% when he drove.

Kim noted, “The defendant began driving 67 minutes after his last drink and continued for 74 minutes. This falls within the typical alcohol absorption period of 30 to 90 minutes after drinking.”

He further emphasized, “Although the alcohol test was conducted 97 minutes after the defendant’s last drink, the BAC reading was only slightly above the legal limit of 0.03%.”

The judge also explained, “Since the exact amount of alcohol consumed could not be confirmed, it cannot be definitively concluded that the defendant’s BAC exceeded 0.03% at the time of driving, based solely on the fact that he appeared unsteady during the test.”

In similar cases, the Supreme Court has ruled that even with a time gap between driving and the alcohol test, determining whether a driver exceeded the legal limit should take into account multiple factors, including the driver’s behavior, alcohol intake, and the time elapsed since drinking.

In contrast, another driver was recently fined with a slightly above 0.03% BAC.

In that case, the court found other evidence, such as the defendant’s behavior and drinking timeline, more credible than the defendant’s claim about the timing of his alcohol consumption, leading to a conviction for drunk driving.