Case Background

On a certain evening at 8:10 PM, Xiao De had just finished working overtime and decided to relax by having a drink at home. The next morning at 7:30 AM, he drove his car to go out with friends. At 9:30 AM that same day, while passing through an intersection, he accidentally rear-ended a passenger van in front of him (no one was injured). The police were called to the scene and conducted a breath alcohol test on Xiao De at 10:00 AM, which showed a breath alcohol concentration of 0.14 mg/L. By back-calculating to the initial driving time, his breath alcohol concentration was estimated to be 0.34 mg/L (calculation: 0.14 + 0.08 × 2 + 0.08 × 27/60, rounded to two decimal places). He was charged with the public danger crime under Article 185-3, Paragraph 1, Subparagraph 1 of the Criminal Code.

District Court：Not Guilty Verdict

The court believed that the method of estimating blood alcohol content (BAC) based on normal individuals is imprecise and unreliable due to significant differences in metabolic rates caused by race, gender, weight, individual metabolism, and drinking habits. Moreover, Xiao De suffers from gouty arthritis with gouty tophi and degenerative arthritis. Gout is an acute arthritis caused by abnormal uric acid metabolism, most commonly affecting the big toe joint, and can lead to permanent joint damage, limited mobility, and joint deformity after repeated attacks. Therefore, Xiao De's metabolic rate is significantly lower than that of a normal person, making the estimation method unsuitable for determining his BAC at the time he started driving.

The pattern Xiao De drew on the concentric circle test was complete, continuous, and within the specified range. Although he failed the one-leg stand test, this can be attributed to his gouty arthritis with gouty tophi and degenerative arthritis, which impairs joint function and balance. Hence, it is difficult to conclude that the failure was due to residual alcohol from drinking at 8:10 PM the previous day.

The damage to Xiao De's car was limited to the front bumper, and the other vehicle's damage was limited to the rear bumper. Both vehicles sustained minor damage, and there was heavy traffic at the time with Xiao De driving at a low speed. It is evident that the accident was primarily caused by Xiao De's failure to pay attention to the road conditions and maintain a safe distance from the vehicle in front.

Ultimately, the court found Xiao De not guilty. In addition to the defense arguments, the court also determined that the evidence presented by the prosecutor was insufficient to prove that Xiao De's BAC was above 0.25 mg/L while driving, nor was there concrete evidence showing that he was unable to drive safely due to alcohol consumption. The prosecutor's evidence did not provide a positive proof of guilt, and the methods of proof presented were unconvincing to the judge, thus precluding a conviction based on speculation or presumption.