All judgment of the court below shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In relation to the mistake of facts in violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving), the defendant was not at the time of the measurement of alcohol, and the result of the measurement of alcohol was the result that does not fall under the violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving), and the report on the circumstantial statement of a drinking driver was signed in blank only by the control police officer, so the defendant was not guilty of this part of the facts charged, even though he was under the influence of alcohol level while driving under the influence of alcohol level in blank. Thus, the court below found the defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged. The second judgment of the court below is erroneous of law

(2) The defendant's grounds of appeal, etc. submitted after the lapse of the deadline for appeal shall be determined within the scope of supplement to the grounds of appeal, and no separate decision shall be made as to the assertion that is not entirely entered in the grounds of appeal.

The sentencing of the judgment of the court below on unreasonable sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant for ex officio judgment.

The first and second original courts sentenced the defendant to each punishment after completing a separate hearing with the Gwangju District Court 2018 High Court 2018 High Court 3576, 2018 High Court 81, and sentenced the defendant to each punishment. The defendant filed an appeal with respect to the first and second original judgment, and this court decided to hold concurrent hearings with respect to the above appellate cases. Each of the first and second original judgments against the defendant must be sentenced to a single sentence within the scope of one of the concurrent crimes under Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act in relation to concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act. Therefore, the judgment of the court below is not exempt from all reversal.

The defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of facts is still subject to the judgment of this court, even if there is a ground for ex officio reversal.

B. The second instance judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts, etc. is legitimate.