A. The Defendant asserted a mistake of facts (1) because he was found to be in a fluoral cluoral solution immediately before the measurement of alcohol, and the blood alcohol concentration resulted in 0.055%, and did not drive under the influence of alcohol at the time.

(2) The police officer did not confirm whether the defendant's oral administration was used at the time of control, and it can be deemed that there was a defect in the procedure of measuring drinking alcohol because it violated Article 38 (3) of the Traffic Control Guidelines, and thus, it cannot be acknowledged that the result of measuring drinking alcohol based on such unlawful procedure is difficult.

(3) The Defendant: (a) requested the police officer to collect blood after having taken a breath test; (b) however, the police officer’s request to collect blood was made to the effect that “if a police officer, the numerical value may increase; (c) it is favorable for the police officer to not collect blood; and (d) it indirectly transmitted the collection of blood; and (c) the police officer’s mistake that “the police officer was exposed to the third time and suspended his/her driver’s license is revoked, not the third time (which means being exposed to the third time and the driver’s license is revoked).” In sum, the Defendant withdrawn

Therefore, since the Defendant was deprived of the opportunity to demand a measurement of alcohol due to blood collection at the time, the result of the measurement of alcohol due to pulmonary measurement cannot be recognized.

(3) The court below found the defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case by adopting the statement of the police officers without credibility and the result of the breath measurement as evidence even though the defendant did not drive under the influence of alcohol. (4) As such, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The lower court’s sentence (one million won of fine) on the grounds of unreasonable sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts

A. The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, i.e., the judgment on the first proposal, and i., the following circumstances.