A. Fact-misunderstanding Defendant driving a vehicle to D, and recognized the fact that alcohol content in blood was measured by 0.116%, but the Defendant driving a vehicle to D and parked to D, but the Defendant was merely measured the alcohol content in the blood of beer, and did not drive a drinking.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court as to the assertion of mistake of facts, the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts is rejected.

① The F, who observed the driving of drinking by the Defendant, consistently stated the facts of the witness in the investigative agency and the court of original instance. The contents of the F, immediately after the Defendant and the road, the Defendant parked in D, which was suspected of driving alcohol, and the Defendant appeared to enter Q Indones around 09:44, and reported to 112, and the police arrived at D around 09:50, and discovered the Defendant at Q indones around 09:53.

According to F’s statement, given that there was no time time for the Defendant to drink and return to the beer at the time, it is reasonable to deem the Defendant to have driven a vehicle while drinking alcohol and driving it to D.

2. After parking the vehicles in D, the Defendant: (a) 2 cans and 3 cans and strings to the near Luss; and (b) 1 cans and strings immediately from the place to D; and (c) O, the strings of which are the strings.

The argument is asserted.

However, Ler G is consistently stated in the investigative agency and the court of the court of the court below that there is no be be be be be beerer at the time, and the O that the defendant is beer while beer, and the court of the court of the court below that the defendant was beer shall sit on Ler's front table in the court of the court of the court below.