Even though the defendant's blood alcohol level at the time of driving cannot be determined to have reached 0.082% since the volume and drinking time of drinking is unclear, the court below found the defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case. In other words, the court below erred by misunderstanding legal principles or misunderstanding of facts.

(3) The defendant's judgment on the first day of the trial of the court of appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing. However, the defendant's appeal cannot be a legitimate ground for appeal as a subsequent argument filed after the deadline for submitting the grounds of appeal. In addition, even if ex officio is examined, considering all the circumstances constituting the conditions for sentencing specified in the records, the sentence of the court below cannot be deemed as being excessively unreasonable. Thus, the defendant's above assertion is without

A. As to the Defendant’s non-guilty of the facts charged, the instant facts charged: (a) driving a C-car under the influence of alcohol content of 0.082% from a 200-meter radius to the parking lot at the car registration office located in the Sinyang-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-si

Since "the contents" are specified, this part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.

B. As to the assertion that the level of blood alcohol as stated in the facts charged cannot be recognized, there is strict proof of the volume of alcohol, time of alcohol, and body body, which is a premise for the application of the FDmark formula, and as to other factors affecting the blood alcohol concentration, the blood alcohol concentration corresponding to the blood alcohol level as defined in the law, is calculated in accordance with the FDmark formula by inserting the most favorable value in comparison with the Defendant.