A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for three years.

Provided, That the above punishment shall be imposed for five years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

A. As to the death of a motor vehicle, among the facts charged in the instant case, Defendant 1 was aware of the possibility of burying a motor vehicle driven at the time into the sea, and there was no intention to see the possibility of burying the motor vehicle into the sea, i.e., the intention to see the risk, e., the intention to see whether the motor vehicle would be buried into the sea, and the intention to see the interested victim was merely the intention to see the sea.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged on the premise that the above intentional act was committed, is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to willful negligence, which affected the conclusion of the

B) As to the violation of the Road Traffic Act from among the facts charged in the instant case, the lower court recognized that the blood alcohol concentration at the time when the Defendant sculping and driving alcohol was 0.114% by reverseizing the blood alcohol concentration of the Defendant measured later, but this is premised on the Defendant’s blood alcohol concentration at the lower level. However, considering that the Defendant’s blood alcohol concentration at the time when sculping and drinking alcohol was measured for the Defendant and the time when the blood alcohol concentration was measured for the Defendant, it shall be deemed that the Defendant’s blood alcohol concentration at the time when sculing and driving alcohol was in the lower level rather than the lower level. Accordingly, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant’s blood alcohol concentration at the time of driving exceeded 0.1% under Article 148-2(2)2 of the Road Traffic Act. Accordingly, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the application of the above official mark, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence is too uneased and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to whether the Defendant had an intention to bury a motor vehicle, the Defendant’s summary of the facts charged in this part of the charges is as to whether the Defendant had an intention to bury a motor vehicle.