The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of the facts or misapprehension of the legal principles, the driving of a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol by the defendant is consistent. However, it is justified as an act that does not violate emergency evacuation or social rules and is not contrary to the reason, since a substitute driver left the motor vehicle of the defendant while on the road and moves the motor vehicle to a safe place by driving 20 meters inevitably in order to prevent danger to the safety and life of his/her family.

B. Sentencing

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts or legal principles, an emergency escape under Article 22(1) of the Criminal Act refers to an act having considerable reason to avoid the present danger to one’s own or another’s legal interest. Here, “an act having considerable reason” refers to an act which can be accepted in light of the overall spirit of legal order or the social ethics or social norms behind it, and an act of escape must be the sole means to protect the legal interests faced with danger, and shall be the most minor damage to the victim. The benefits preserved by the act of escape shall be less than the benefits infringed, and the act of escape must be an appropriate means in light of social ethics or the overall spirit of legal order (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Do9396, Apr. 13, 2006). In addition, “an act which does not violate social rules” under Article 20 of the Criminal Act refers to an act that may be justified in light of social norms or social norms, and in order to reasonably recognize the motive or balance of a certain act as an act without reasonable reason.