The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact, the Defendant’s misunderstanding of the fact was able to take a alcohol level of 200 alcohol level at the time of driving the Defendant’s alcohol level of 0.229% since the Defendant’s alcohol level at the same time does not actually reach 0.29%, inasmuch as the Defendant’s alcohol level at the time of driving the Defendant’s blood level of alcohol level of 200 alcohol level of 0.29%.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The judgment of the court below on the assertion of facts is based on the evidence duly adopted and investigated, that is, the following circumstances acknowledged by the court below. ① The defendant, from June 15, 2020 to August 18, 2020, after drinking alcohol on the restaurant “L”, immediately after drinking about 400 meters from the above restaurant to the road in front of the restaurant “D” (hereinafter “D restaurant”) located at a distance of about 460 meters from the above restaurant, ② The defendant called the police officer upon receiving a 112 report that “the drinking driver driven a vehicle at the vehicle” around 18:52:2 on the same day, the police officer discovered the vehicle driven by the defendant on the road in front of the D restaurant while searching the surrounding area, ③ the police officer measured by the defendant that drinking alcohol and drinking alcohol of the defendant was 8:6 percent of alcohol and drinking alcohol of the defendant, ④ The defendant, who was the police officer on the measurement of the police officer, stated that 8:0 alcohol and drinking alcohol of the defendant.

Now, I were fluent.

A statement made to the effect that the blood alcohol concentration level 0.268% is 0.268%, and at the time, the defendant did not state that 2000 alcohol level is breath in D cafeteria, and 6.