A. misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles cannot be deemed that the blood alcohol level at the time when the Defendant was driving was above 0.10%, which is the punishment standard, and the normal driving was not difficult, and it cannot be readily concluded that the Defendant’s act was a direct cause of injury, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby convicting the Defendant of the facts charged.

B. The sentence of imprisonment (six months of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, community service, and order to attend a lecture) against the accused by the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, the Defendant made the same assertion in the trial of the lower court, and the lower court determined that the Defendant was guilty on all the charges of this case by comprehensively taking account of the circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated.

In light of the records, a thorough examination of the judgment of the court below reveals that the court below's determination that the charges against the defendant are recognized on the grounds that the blood alcohol concentration at the time of Hobbe measurement is 0.220% and 0.10% which is the punishment standard, the Defendant's speech and behavior condition at the time of this case was divided into 0.10%, and the blood color was red, smelled, smelled, and walked, the mold was seen as walking, and the victim was able to promptly find out the fact that the Defendant was driving under the influence of alcohol, such as the flusium and the flab, and the victim was making a statement about the flusium due to the shock with the Defendant's vehicle, and the victim made a statement at the court below's discretion that it was reasonable to find the facts charged against the Defendant, and there was no error of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles in the judgment of the court below.

This part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.

B. On the assertion of unfair sentencing, a normal driving is under the influence of alcohol despite the history of driving under the influence of alcohol.