A. misunderstanding of facts (the part of the original judgment on the violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving)) is erroneous in the judgment of the court below since the defendant merely drives a vehicle within a passenger car after driving the vehicle, and there is no fact that he drives a vehicle in a drinking condition.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (fine 5 million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The judgment of the court below 1 on the assertion of mistake of facts is not easy to understand that the defendant 1 drank alcohol in his/her vehicle up to the high alcohol level of 0.179% in his/her vehicle under the circumstances where the issue of whether to drive his/her vehicle is at issue even though the interval was short of 10 minutes since the defendant who got behind the vehicle at the time had been making two times or more between the defendant and G-day driving, and that the defendant did not drive his/her vehicle after the detection of alcohol, by denying the alcohol, motive, departure point, purpose point, etc.

While asserting that he or she was acting on behalf of others, he or she argued that he or she would drink within a vehicle after he or she completed the driving only when he or she was found to have been partially behind by the statement, etc. of G driving, but there is no evidence to support this. ③ At the time, the witness L on board the Defendant’s vehicle was made in the court of original instance, and the Defendant made a statement to the effect that he or she did not drink to drive the vehicle. However, L is a considerable part of the witness’s above in light of the following: (a) the Defendant had already taken place at the time when he or she was working on G driving and trial; (b) there are many parts of the Defendant’s statement to the effect that he or she could not properly memory the aforementioned driving circumstance or the circumstance during which he or she got into drinking within the vehicle.