The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor to the gist of the grounds for appeal, the court below acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged in this case, although the Defendant could fully recognize the driving under drinking as stated in the facts charged, which is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts.

2. Determination

A. On December 23, 2016, the Defendant, at around 20:30, driven a C 2 truck with a alcohol level of about 10 meters from the 39 Samsung Factory’s front side to the right of Mapopopo-si free from the 39 Samsung Factory’s front side to the front road, and drive a C 2 truck with a alcohol level of about 0.053% (the application of the said dmark formula) from the 10m section to the front road.

B. The lower court determined as follows by comprehensively taking account of the adopted evidence: (a) the police officer affiliated with the wooden Police Station D police box was called upon a traffic accident causing collision of parked vehicles; (b) the Defendant was identified as the person causing the traffic accident; (c) the Defendant’s blood alcohol level was determined to be 0.107%; and (d) the Defendant’s blood alcohol level was determined to be 0.107%; (b) the police officer affiliated with the Bapo Police Station F, to whom the instant case was transferred, was transferred, on the basis of the Defendant’s statement, it is difficult to recognize that the Defendant’s alcohol level was 0.0% of the blood alcohol level at the time of the traffic accident under the premise that the Defendant’s alcohol level was 500 morl, and the Defendant was dice at the nearby restaurant of the accident site; and (c) the Defendant was not 50.0% of the alcohol level at the time of the traffic accident under the above dmark formula, but it was difficult to recognize that the Defendant’s alcohol level was 0.