The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The court below acquitted the defendant as to the violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving) although the defendant's misunderstanding of the facts found that he/she driven a motor vehicle while drunk with a alcohol level of 0.05% or more in blood, the court below found him/her not guilty. Thus, the court below erred by misunderstanding the facts.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court (one million won in penalty) is too unhued and unfair.

2. On February 20, 2016, the Defendant driven C vehicle at a section of approximately 150 meters in the vicinity of the Sungnam-si Regu, A, and E from around the same 7288-9, while under the influence of alcohol content 0.057% in the blood transfusion around February 20, 2016.

3. Determination

A. 1) The lower court’s determination as to the assertion of mistake of facts is as follows. The lower court: (a) determined based on the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court; (b) i.e., the Defendant drank two alcohols at a restaurant from February 20, 2016 to around 20:30; (c) calculated the food value at around 21:02; and (d) driven the said C vehicle parked on the parking lot; (c) immediately caused a traffic accident shocking the back portion of Gtoscar car that was parked on the road; and (d) was stopped by the driver of the latter Ctoscar car that was driven at around 21:11; and (e) the Defendant drankly unfavorable to the Defendant by entering the restaurant at around 20:00.

In addition, 90 minutes have not elapsed until the final alcohol driving, and 2. The defendant measured 0.057% by the police officer dispatched after receiving a report of 21:33, and 0.057%. The 90 minutes have not elapsed from the time of drinking, or was measured during the so-called increase in alcohol concentration until the highest level, and the above measured level exceeds 0.05%, which is the standard of drinking control.