A. misunderstanding of facts 1) As to the violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving of facts), it is unfair to calculate the blood alcohol level of the defendant by applying the above dmark formula, even though it did not have any strict proof of the premise in this case, in order to apply the above dmark formula, the defendant's blood collection process did not contain any error in matters of law that affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the fact that the defendant's above dmark was guilty of violating the Act on the Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents, which affected the conclusion of the judgment on the Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents, despite there is no objective evidence to acknowledge that the blood collected from the defendant's vehicle conflict with the victim's taxi driver's cab in the process of storage, movement, etc.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (fine 2,00,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts

A. As to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts as to the violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving) 1) With respect to the assertion that there was a circumstance that may affect the blood alcohol concentration in the process of collecting blood and the process of keeping and movement of recovered blood, it is reasonable to judge’s free evaluation of evidence to determine which degree of breathe level is different from the breathe level by blood testing.