A. According to the statement, investigation report, etc. of the defendant and the driver of the other vehicle, although the defendant could be found to have caused a traffic accident and damaged the other party's vehicle, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant about the violation of the Road Traffic Act (the measures not taken after the accident) among the facts charged in the case is erroneous.

B. The sentence of the lower court that is unfair in sentencing (an amount of eight million won) is too unhued and unfair.

2. Determination

A. The lower court determined as to the assertion of mistake of facts on the grounds stated in its reasoning, based on the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone, it is insufficient to recognize that the Defendant damaged the goods by the instant accident, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this, and determined that the Defendant’s violation of the Traffic Act (unclaimed measures after the accident) among the instant facts charged constituted a case where there is no evidence of

Examining the above judgment of the court below closely in accordance with the records and legal principles, the judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and there is an error of law by misconception of facts as alleged by the prosecutor.

subsection (b) of this section.

Therefore, the prosecutor's above assertion is without merit.

B. The Defendant again committed the instant drinking driving crime even though he/she had a previous conviction of a fine for drinking driving more than twice, and the driving of drinking is a crime that may have a significant harm to an unspecified person, and is highly likely to pose a significant social risk, and the degree of driving at the time of the instant crime is significant, etc. are disadvantageous to the Defendant.

However, the defendant's mistake is unfolded and reflected in depth, and the first one of the above drinking drivers is the past of around 2001 and the second one is the past of around 2008, which was ten years before the second one, and the defendant has lived faithfully and has exceeded the fine without criminal records.