A. The final point of time for misunderstanding of facts is different from the facts charged, and since the Defendant conducted a drinking measurement without seeking to put the drafting at the time of the measurement of drinking, the blood alcohol concentration recorded in the facts charged cannot be trusted.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous.

B. The sentence imposed by the court below on the grounds of unreasonable sentencing (the fine of 2.5 million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The Defendant asserts that the lower court’s judgment on the assertion of misunderstanding of facts was made by confession of the facts charged in the lower court, and that the drafting at the time of sobage measurement was not attributable to the party, so it cannot be recognized as drinking water recorded in the facts charged according to the result of the

However, according to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, including the notification of the result of the drinking driving control (Evidence No. 7) and the deliberation of the fact of the drinking driving control (Evidence No. 20 of the evidence record), it can be recognized that the defendant saw about 1 disease at the beginning of the punishment, and the fact that the defendant's driving of the instant vehicle was controlled by drinking while driving the vehicle at home, the drafting at the time of the drinking alcohol measurement was conducted while driving the vehicle at the time of the drinking alcohol measurement, the fact that the drinking alcohol level was 0.10%, and the fact that the drinking alcohol level was 0.10% from the drinking alcohol level, etc.

In full view of the above confession and the remaining evidence of the defendant, the defendant can sufficiently recognize the fact that he drives a vehicle while under influence of 0.101% alcohol level as stated in the judgment of the court below.

The court below's finding the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is just, and there is no error of law by mistake.

B. As to the assertion of unfair sentencing, the Defendant’s decision on the assertion of unfair sentencing is against the mistake of drinking driving, thereby failing to repeat again, and the aged and economic circumstances are also recognized.

However, the defendant was punished by a fine twice due to drinking.