A. In fact, the Defendant misunderstanding that the can cans flick, operated 10 meters a scooter of the Defendant, installed a scooter, and then dnick 7 to 8 dnick of cans.

During that period, the defendant was dissatisfied with the defendant who was next to the police, and the people reported the defendant's drinking to the police, and reported the scooter to the police, thereby measuring the drinking of the defendant.

Therefore, it cannot be said that the defendant is operating the scooter in the measured blood content with respect to the defendant.

However, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous by misunderstanding facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence of the lower court that is unfair in sentencing (an amount of five million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The following circumstances that can be acknowledged by the evidence adopted and examined by the court below on the assertion of mistake of facts, namely, the defendant, upon being investigated by the police, stated that he did not raise any objection to the drinking volume (37 pages of the evidence record). Although the court below acknowledged the facts charged in the instant case (the defendant's statement in the first trial protocol), the defendant himself stated that he would drink more after the operation of the scooter, and the defendant's statement that he would drink more after the operation of the scooter. ② The police reported the defendant to the police "D operated a scooter under the influence of alcohol, and scood in the defendant's entrance at the time.

Comprehensively taking account of the fact that the Defendant made a statement to the purport that it was “scood,” it may be recognized that the Defendant operated a scood while under the influence of alcohol as stated in the facts charged of the instant case, and otherwise, that the Defendant dice additional alcohol

There is no evidence to see.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's argument is without merit.

B. The defendant has a record of having been punished several times due to drinking driving.