A. Fact-misunderstanding 1) In relation to the driving of a vehicle, the Defendant parked the vehicle on the front of the camping site of the E company, and around 15:30 on July 14, 2015, the Defendant obstructed the passage of the vehicle from the side of the said company, and obstructed the transfer of the vehicle on the front of the camping site of the E company, and without driving the vehicle on the front of the vehicle, the Defendant moved the vehicle by using the slope of the parking site by using the auxiliary agents (intersection 2) without driving the vehicle. Thus, the Defendant is not driving or operating the said vehicle.

2) In relation to the blood alcohol concentration at the time of the above movement of the vehicle, the Defendant, at the time, dices by dividing the president of the above company into J and 1 disease per week, and the Defendant’s drinking is about the remaining degree of 3 alcohol per week, and the Defendant continued to drink the vehicle even after moving the vehicle, and did not have to measure the alcohol concentration at the time of moving the vehicle more much than the blood alcohol concentration at the time of movement by measuring the alcohol level at around 18:04 on the same day.

3) Nevertheless, on July 14, 2015, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of driving the said vehicle in a section of about 15 meters from the front of the camping site of the E company to the front of the said company, while under the influence of alcohol level of 0.124% among the blood transfusion around 17:40 on July 14, 2015, and thereby adversely affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (an amount of KRW 2.5 million) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. In light of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the following circumstances revealed by the records, the court below's judgment is just and there is no error of law of misunderstanding of facts as alleged by the defendant.

1) On July 14, 2015, the Defendant, at the time of the instant case, did so by drinking while drinking at E companies around 16:00, and did so as to look at the transport cost of E companies, and did so.