The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In light of the fact that the Defendant’s final drinking time was around 01:00 on September 17, 2017, and the driving time was around 01:23 on September 17, 2017, and the drinking measuring time was around 01:53 on September 17, 2017, the blood alcohol concentration at the time of driving was at the rate of 0.1% on the ground that the alcohol concentration at the time of drinking was at the rate of 0.206% on the blood alcohol concentration as indicated in the facts charged.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which convicted the Defendant of the facts charged of this case is erroneous and adversely affected by the judgment.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (eight months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The Defendant’s blood alcohol concentration at the time was somewhat lower than that indicated in the facts charged, contrary to the defense counsel’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts

Even if the facts charged in the instant case were to have been punished twice or more due to drinking, and was charged for violating Article 148-2 (1) 1 of the Road Traffic Act by a person driving under the influence of alcohol again, and thus, does not affect the application of the relevant Act and subordinate statutes. In full view of the time interval between drinking and the measurement, the number of alcohol concentration during the measured blood, the duration during which drinking continued, the amount of drinking and the amount of drinking, the behavior of the Defendant at the time of measurement, etc., the fact that the Defendant driven while under the influence of alcohol above 0.05% during alcohol level at the time can be sufficiently recognized, and the Defendant’s assertion of mistake is without merit.

B. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court’s determination on the unfair argument of sentencing, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect such a case (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015, etc.). Drinking driving is a crime that may have a significant harm to an unspecified person, and its social risk is considerably high.