The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of three million won.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The defendant has not driven a motor vehicle under influence of alcohol.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (three million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. An ex officio determination prosecutor filed an application for amendments to a bill of amendment with the content that “462,00 won of the repair cost” portion in the facts charged was corrected to “unexplosive amount of the repair cost (explosive condition)” (hereinafter “explosive condition”), and the subject of the adjudication was changed by this court’s permission. As such, the lower judgment was no longer maintained.

However, despite the above reasons for ex officio destruction, the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts relating to the changed facts charged is still subject to the judgment of this court, and this is examined below.

B. In light of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below of fact-finding and the court of original instance, the defendant could sufficiently recognize the fact that the defendant was damaged by driving in drinking condition while driving a motor vehicle at drinking and then trying to shock the victim's G high level of car in order to drive the motor vehicle, and thus, the defendant's allegation of mistake of fact is without merit.

3. Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed pursuant to Article 364(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing, on the ground of the above ex officio reversal, and the judgment below is again decided as follows.

Criminal facts

Criminal facts of the defendant and the summary of such evidence recognized by the court as stated in this

2. The part of “repair cost 462,00 won” in the part of the violation of the Road Traffic Act is identical to the corresponding column of the judgment of the court below, except for the correction of “fulging of repair cost” as “fulging of repair cost.” As such, it shall be cited in accordance with Article 369 of the

Application of Statutes

1...