Why Was the Taxi Driver Acquitted After Driving Following Three Shots of Soju During the Day?

Measured 26 Minutes After Stopping the Car

Court: "Cannot Definitively Conclude Blood Alcohol Level Exceeded 0.03%"

The court has acquitted a taxi driver in his 50s who was accused of driving under the influence after drinking three glasses of soju in broad daylight.

According to Yonhap News on August 9, the Criminal Division 7 Single Judge (Judge Lee Sung) at the Eastern Branch of the Busan District Court has found taxi driver A not guilty of violating the Road Traffic Act (drunk driving).

Mr. A was brought to trial on charges of driving approximately 1 km from a restaurant in Haeundae-gu, Busan, to Suyeong-gu after drinking alcohol on December 13 of last year. At that time, he left the restaurant at 12:06 p.m., based on the card payment receipt, got behind the wheel, and arrived at his destination at 12:20 p.m.—14 minutes later—where he remained resting inside the car. Police were called by a report and requested a breathalyzer test at 12:46 p.m. The test was conducted 26 minutes after he stopped driving. His blood alcohol concentration was 0.03%, exactly at the legal threshold for drunk driving under current law. Prosecutors argued that Mr. A’s blood alcohol concentration was likely above 0.03% at the time he was driving.

However, the court's judgment differed. In general, blood alcohol concentration typically peaks 30 to 90 minutes after drinking. In Mr. A’s case, since the test occurred 40 minutes after his last drink—during the absorption phase—it was considered possible that his concentration was lower at the time of driving, 26 minutes earlier, than at the time of the test.

The court also took into account the calculation based on Mr. A’s own statement about his alcohol intake. Assuming, as he testified, that he consumed three glasses of soju, and applying a Widmark formula favorable to the defendant, his estimated blood alcohol concentration at the time of driving was calculated to be approximately 0.027%.

The court explained, “Although the prosecution’s report on the defendant’s condition states that his speech was slurred, his gait was normal, and his complexion was slightly flushed, these observations are insufficient to objectively assess the degree of intoxication.” The court added, regarding the grounds for the acquittal, “Since the prosecution has not proved the charge beyond a reasonable doubt, there is no evidence of a crime, and therefore a not-guilty verdict is rendered.”

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.