However, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of the violation of the Road Traffic Act is erroneous in the misconception of facts.

2. The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, namely, the blood alcohol concentration of the Defendant was under the influence of 0.178% and the back of the driver's seat of the instant vehicle under the influence of 0.178% and the back of the driver's seat of the instant vehicle owned by the victim J (hereinafter referred to as "victim's vehicle"), and according to the appraisal conference on the video of the black box taken by the appraiser affiliated with the National Institute of Scientific Investigation and Research at the time of the formation of the appraiser L, the collision occurred due to the movement of the damaged vehicle in the aspect of the damaged vehicle without observing the move, and if the damaged trace of the damaged vehicle due to the collision exists on the left-hand side, it is highly likely that the instant vehicle might shock the damaged vehicle. In light of the fact that the damaged vehicle was stopped at the time of the instant accident, and the only vehicle and the object that was sufficient to the left-hand side of the damaged vehicle, etc., the Defendant could recognize the facts of the instant vehicle.

Therefore, as long as the defendant drives the vehicle in this case under the influence of alcohol concentration of 0.178%, the crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act is established against the defendant. The judgment of the court below with the same conclusion is not erroneous in the misunderstanding of facts, and the above misunderstanding of facts by the defendant and his defense counsel is not justified.

3. If so, the defendant's appeal is without merit, and it is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act.