The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Since misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles have been done after the administration of philophones, the Defendant had all effects of drugs after the lapse of 8 hours after the administration of philophones, the crime under paragraph (2) of the facts constituting the crime in the judgment

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one year of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, probation, confiscation, and 100,000 won) is too unreasonable.

2. Article 150 subparagraph 1 of the former Road Traffic Act provides that “A person who drives a motor vehicle, etc. in a state where he/she is unlikely to drive the motor vehicle normally due to drugs in violation of the provisions of Article 45” shall be punished. Article 45 of the Road Traffic Act provides that “A driver of a motor vehicle, etc. shall not drive a motor vehicle, etc. in a state where he/she is unlikely to drive the motor vehicle normally due to excessive diseases or drugs (referring to narcotics, marijuana, psychotropic drugs, and other drugs prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Public Administration and Security) in addition to the

It is reasonable to view that the person can not be punished immediately because he/she was driving a motor vehicle while he/she administered a motor vehicle under the legal text of the above provision, but can be punished only when he/she drives a motor vehicle under the condition that he/she is unlikely to drive a motor vehicle normally. However, the crime of violation of the above provision of the Road Traffic Act is established when he/she drives a motor vehicle under the condition that he/she is unlikely to drive a motor vehicle in a normal condition due to the influence of drugs, etc. as a dangerous crime

(Supreme Court Decision 2010Do11272 Decided December 23, 2010). In other words, the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, which are, the Defendant, at around 08:00 on June 3, 2016, administered the volume of 0.05g philophones into the bloodline, which is normally one time.