A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of one year and two months.

Of the facts charged in the instant case.

A. Defendant 1) In the instant facts charged by the court below, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as evidence of conviction against the violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving in the case of this case), and the report of detection of a driver and the investigation report (application of the Dmark) are merely merely the result of the investigation agency’s inclusion of the Defendant’s values such as drinking time and drinking volume in the Dmark formula in the Dmark formula. Thus, it cannot be deemed as supporting evidence for the Defendant’s confession, and there is no other evidence to prove this part of the facts charged. 2) The sentence of the court below of unfair sentencing (the first instance court: imprisonment of 10 months and the second instance court: imprisonment of 6 months) is too unreasonable.

B. Prosecutor 1) Since the erroneous determination of facts brought about by the accused with the knowledge that the digital camera was occupied by possession, it is sufficiently recognized that the accused has the intent to obtain unlawful acquisition. 2) The sentence of the lower court on unreasonable sentencing (the first instance court: 10 months of imprisonment) is too uneased and unfair.

2. Determination

A. Before the judgment on the argument of the Defendant and the prosecutor on the discretionary judgment, this Court tried to examine the appeal case against the Defendant by combining each of the judgment below against the Defendant, and each of the offenses at the time of the original judgment is in a concurrent crime relationship under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and shall be sentenced to one punishment within the scope of the term of punishment, which is severe for concurrent crimes, in accordance with Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act. Thus, each

However, despite the above reasons for ex officio reversal, the defendant's assertion of misapprehension of legal principles and the prosecutor's assertion of misunderstanding of facts is still subject to the judgment of this court.

B. Judgment 1 on the Defendant’s assertion of misapprehension of the legal principles as to the instant facts charged, the Defendant violated the Road Traffic Act (the summary of the charge of running a sound driving) from among the facts charged in the instant case, on December 12, 2012, around 19:55, the blood alcohol concentration is 0.