All judgment of the court below shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months and by a fine of five thousand won.

The defendant above.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) Defendant 1 did not have driven a motor vehicle, etc. under the influence of alcohol at the time, since he did not drive the motor vehicle at the time and at the place of judgment of the second instance.

Although there was no reasonable ground to determine the seal, the second court found the defendant guilty of the facts charged. The second court's judgment is erroneous as a misunderstanding of facts.

2) The sentencing of the 2nd judgment decision is too unreasonable.

B. The sentencing of the first original decision of the Prosecutor’s 1 is too uncomfortable.

2. We examine ex officio the grounds for appeal by the defendant and prosecutor prior to the judgment.

The first and second court sentenced the defendant to a separate trial by the Gwangju District Court 2016 High Court 3207 High Court 2015 High Court 2015 High Court 1917, and sentenced the defendant to a punishment for each punishment. The first court's judgment against the defendant, the prosecutor filed each appeal against the second court's judgment, and this court decided to hold a joint trial against the defendant. The first and second court's judgment against the defendant is in concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act and should be sentenced to a single sentence within the scope of punishment subject to aggravated concurrent crimes under Article 38 (1) of the Criminal Act. In this regard, the judgment of the court below cannot be exempted 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.

3. Judgment on the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts

A. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the adopted evidence, the second instance court determined that the Defendant’s driving of the instant vehicle at the time and place in the judgment of the second instance constituted the subject of the crime of refusing to measure alcohol in this case as a driver who driven the instant vehicle at the time and place in the second instance judgment.

1) On September 28, 2015, the security guards and security guards assigned to the G police box by the former police box and the police officer I around 00:47.