A. Error of fact is only a subsequent fact in a parking lot, and thus it cannot be punished as a drinking driving.

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 lower court on the grounds of unreasonable sentencing (hereinafter referred to as a fine of four million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly admitted by the lower court regarding the assertion of mistake of facts, the fact that the Defendant driven a car while under the influence of alcohol level 0.163% can be sufficiently recognized.

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

Even if the place where the defendant drives is a parking lot and is not a road, it is a violation of the prohibition of drinking under Article 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act.

Defendant’s assertion of mistake or misapprehension of legal principles is without merit.

B. In 2005, the Defendant did not have any record of punishment for the same kind of case as the fine was imposed on the refusal of drinking alcohol measurement, and did not repeat the case.

However, even if the crime of this case is clearly acknowledged by evidence, it is difficult to view that the defendant denies it and seriously reflects it, and the blood alcohol concentration of the defendant was higher than 0.163%.

Article 148-2 (2) 2 of the Road Traffic Act provides that a person whose blood alcohol content is not less than 0.1% shall be punished by imprisonment with labor for not less than six months but not more than one year or by a fine not less than three million won but not more than five million won. The lower court determined a punishment by taking into account the blood alcohol concentration, Defendant’s identical power, and circumstances after the commission of a fine.

In addition, considering the equity of punishment with similar cases, age, character and conduct, environment, etc. of the defendant and all the sentencing conditions shown in the records and arguments of this case, it cannot be deemed that the sentence imposed by the court below is too unreasonable.

3.