Nevertheless, the court below found the defendant not guilty on the ground that the defendant's act constitutes an emergency evacuation. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. In order to constitute “an act with reasonable grounds” under Article 22(1) of the Criminal Act refers to an act with reasonable grounds to avoid the present danger of one’s own or another’s legal interests. In this context, the act of escape must be the only means to protect the legal interests in danger, the act of escape must be the only means to protect the legal interests in danger, the second method to give the most minor damage to the victim. Third, the profit to be compensated by the act of escape should be more superior to the profit to be infringed upon, and fourth, the act of escape must be a proper means in light of social ethics or the overall spirit of legal order.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2005Do9396 delivered on April 13, 2006). Based on these legal principles, the health class and the court below's decision on the judgment of 2.2. judgment of the court below were stated in the facts charged, and the defendant is found to have driven the vehicle while under the influence of alcohol as stated in the facts charged, but the defendant was found to have driven the vehicle, but the defendant was allowed to drive the vehicle after drinking two persons, G, etc. and drinking, E, a substitute driver, and the defendant was allowed to drive the vehicle, and F was accompanied by the vehicle of the defendant, the vehicle was stopped and parked on the street by the defendant as the issue of selecting the path, and the defendant was stopped and parked on the street in the month, and the defendant was requested to move the vehicle to E, but the defendant did not comply with the request of E