A. misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles 1) The police’s demand for a measurement of drinking to the defendant should be deemed to have commenced an investigation. The above demand for a measurement of drinking alcohol was an unlawful procedure for which the right to refuse to make a statement and the right to appoint a counsel have not been notified.

In addition, it did not explain that the defendant would not have to take a drinking test without wanting to take a measurement, and thus, it was a forced investigation, not a voluntary investigation.

The measurement of drinking without a warrant was an illegal procedure.

Therefore, the collected drinking result as above is inadmissible as an illegally collected evidence.

2) In light of the fact that a person who has performed ordinary drinking is a general form of drinking before himself/herself, and the defendant did not explain that he/she has performed drinking more as a legal site at the time of the instant case, but he/she argued that he/she would drink more drinking after driving in an administrative disposition to revoke the revocation of the driver's license of a motor vehicle that was filed before the instant judgment, it is difficult to see that the defendant's statement in the court below by his/her wife that he/she has performed drinking after entering his/her house is not reliable, and that the defendant had a remaining drinking before measuring the drinking after driving of the instant case.

Therefore, at the time of driving of the instant case, the Defendant’s blood alcohol concentration was at least 0.05%.

It shall not be readily concluded.

3) On March 9, 2017, the facts charged as to driving self-driving alcohol on March 9, 201 were found not guilty, but the lower court convicted him. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine and misunderstanding of facts.

Ultimately, the revocation of a drinking driver's license based on the self-driving on March 9, 2017 is null and void. Thus, at the time of the self-control on April 27, 2017, the defendant cannot be deemed to be a state of non-license, and the facts charged should also be found not guilty.

B. The court below erred in sentencing.