The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. (1) misunderstanding of facts) The primary argument (as to the point of violation of the Road Traffic Act and the point of violation of the Road Traffic Act (non-licensed driving) occurred while moving to the substitute driving at the time of the occurrence of fees and the substitute driving engineer has set up the Defendant’s vehicle in the vicinity of the instant site. Since then, the Defendant saw that tobacco would be avoided and waiting for the substitute driving engineer outside of the instant site, and then laid down the vehicle behind the vehicle again, and then the Defendant is not memoryd at all.

Since then, the vehicle of the defendant is in conflict with the vehicle in the signal atmosphere in front of about six meters, which seems to be the behind the vehicle in front of the defendant's vehicle in front, but it seems that the vehicle of the defendant seems to be moving in the future on the wind that the vehicle in front of the vehicle in front of the signal atmosphere is locked due to the side effects of the urology and alcohol used at the time, and it is not a food vehicle of the defendant.

(2) Preliminary assertion (as to the violation of the Road Traffic Act (as to the operation of a vehicle), even if the Defendant is acknowledged to drive a vehicle, it is difficult to readily conclude that the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor alone was 0.05% or more of the blood alcohol level at the time of driving.

B. The sentence of unfair sentencing (six months of imprisonment) by the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts

A. We examine the judgment on the primary argument. The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, namely, ① although the Defendant did not take a big measure at the time of the discovery of the instant case (the blood alcohol level measured at that time is only 0.052%), it appears not to have asserted that the police officer in charge of controlling the instant case “at the time of the discovery of the instant case’s blood alcohol level was 0.052%,” and there was no fact that the Defendant had driven the instant vehicle with food,” each of the facts charged in the instant case in the court of the court below acknowledged each of the instant facts charged in the instant case, ② the Defendant stopped for about 15-20 minutes