The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant, while under the influence of alcohol at the time of the instant case, did not drive a passenger car as indicated in the facts charged (hereinafter “the instant passenger car”). However, after parking the instant passenger car on the road near the Defendant’s house, the Defendant only drank one bottle of a week in the instant passenger car after parking it on the road near the Defendant’s house.

However, the judgment of the court below which convicted the above facts charged is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence of the lower court that is unfair in sentencing (an amount of five million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, the court below’s determination as to the assertion of mistake of facts can be sufficiently acknowledged that the defendant driven the automobile of this case as stated in the facts charged in the instant case while drunk.

Therefore, the court below was just in finding the Defendant guilty of the facts charged, and there was a mistake of misunderstanding the facts as pointed out by the Defendant.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

① On March 8, 2017, the Defendant driven the section stated in the facts charged in the instant case with the instant passenger car, and set up the said passenger car on the front road at Jungcheon-si around March 8, 2017, and set it out at the said passenger car.

② At around 18:08, E requested the Defendant to move the said car due to a tea and parking problem, and the Defendant stated to the effect that he cannot deduct the said car from the said car. At the time of the above dialogue with the Defendant, E made a statement to the effect that he was smelled from the Defendant at the time of the above dialogue with the Defendant.

③ Around 18:19 on the same day, the police called up to 18:23 police upon receiving a report of E 112 on the driving of alcohol by the Defendant. At that time, the Defendant’s blood color had a large red light and a little range of vision.

The result of measurement by the police of the alcohol concentration in the blood of the defendant around 18:35, the numerical value of which is zero.