The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal by the defendant;

A. On May 7, 2014, the Defendant: (a) driven a vehicle while driving a vehicle with a person who had a little drinking until around 8:00 on May 7, 2014; (b) caused a contact with the victim at around 10:0 a.m. on the same day; and (c) thereafter, the Defendant entered the house and was able to drink and beer together with children; and (d) was measured at 0.128% of blood alcohol concentration by measuring the 1-clock alcohol level on the following day.

Therefore, even though it is apparent that the blood alcohol level was much lower than that at the time when the Defendant driven a vehicle, the lower court erred by misapprehending the fact that the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol while under the influence of alcohol 0.128%.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the grounds of unreasonable sentencing (hereinafter referred to as a fine of four million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The judgment of the court below on the assertion of mistake of facts states the following facts or circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below: ① The victim D stated to the effect that “the police officer did not have any fact that the defendant would have taken alcohol at home when he taken alcohol at home.” On the following day of the accident, E did not state that the defendant would have taken alcohol at home at the time of the drinking test (new wall on May 8, 2014). The police officer, who taken a drinking test on the new wall, did not state that the defendant would have taken alcohol at home. After the preparation of a written statement, the court below stated to the effect that the defendant would have taken alcohol at the time of the preparation of the written statement ( May 11, 2014), but the defendant demanded that the child take alcohol and demanded it to confirm, but the defendant was the only witness, and therefore, the defendant did not have any reason to accept it for the first time, even if he did not have any more favorable opinion at least three days after the measurement of drinking, as alleged by the defendant.