A. The Defendant cannot be deemed to have driven a vehicle under the influence of blood alcohol level 0.215% measured after the accident, since he/she drank dices in the vehicle to be forgotten due to the occurrence of an accident while driving the vehicle.

B. On the other hand, the defendant asserts that the defendant's punishment of the court below (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable, while the prosecutor asserts that it is too uneasible and unfair.

2. The following circumstances acknowledged by evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court on the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts: ① L/N at the scene of a traffic accident caused by the Defendant at the investigation stage up to the lower court’s judgment, the Defendant had consistently stated to the purport that he could drink due to a traffic accident, because he could not easily drive his body on hand and driver’s seat due to the traffic accident; ② Ma which the Defendant observed a traffic accident and reported on 112, stated to the same purport as L/N at the court of the lower court; ② the Defendant’s driver’s disease remaining on the Defendant’s vehicle was discovered; ② the disease was discovered at the driver’s seat remaining on the Defendant’s vehicle; ③ the Defendant did not suffer from a serious injury due to the traffic accident; ③ the Defendant could not easily drive his body on the vehicle and driver’s seat; and the Defendant’s assertion that the Defendant could not have dye his body immediately after the occurrence of the accident is difficult to accept.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion is without merit.

3. The Defendant appears to recognize and reflect the crimes except drinking driving.