The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Fact-misunderstanding or misunderstanding of legal principles (not guilty part against the defendant) that the defendant measured the drinking speed of 22:10 on December 17, 2015 on the same day on which he/she finished driving and measured the drinking speed of 22:45 on the same day, and the interval between 22:45 on the same day is over 35 minutes. According to the statement of the circumstances of the driver in charge of driving at the State, the defendant's speech and behavior conditions are somewhat tight and

The victim also focuses on the defendant's snow, and the victim did not speak.

The defendant made a statement that he would have been under the influence of alcohol in appearance at the time, and even according to the defendant's statement, the defendant 19:30 on the same day she was under the influence of alcohol at the head of the Hopon house with company fees. Thus, the defendant was under the influence of alcohol at the time when the defendant started drinking. As of the time when the defendant started drinking, driving was conducted after 2 hours and 40 minutes, and driving was conducted after 3 hours and 15 minutes, and was under the influence of alcohol at the time of driving or measurement.

In full view of the fact that it is difficult to readily conclude that the Defendant appears to be a skilled driver for at least 23 years since he/she acquired a driver’s license, and that he/she shocked the damaged vehicle in violation of the signal even though he/she was returned to his/her house, and the Defendant reversed his/her statement to an investigative agency on the point of final drinking, even considering that the Defendant’s point of driving alcohol is likely to belong to the rise in alcohol concentration during blood, the Defendant’s blood alcohol concentration at the time of driving exceeds at least 0.05%, which is the penalty standard.

It is sufficient to accept the recognition.

However, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant about the violation of the Road Traffic Act (dacting driving).

B. The sentence of the lower court that is unfair in sentencing (one million won in penalty) is too unhued and unfair.

2. Judgment on the misapprehension of the legal principle or mistake of facts

A. The lower court’s judgment is based on the records, and the Defendant’s final decision.