The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. According to the location of the Defendant’s mobile data base station claiming mistake of facts, the Defendant is confirmed to have existed in Gangnam-gu Seoul Eastdong from 04:41 to 09:24 on the same day on the day of this case, and the Defendant also started drinking from the time immediately after he went into the previous Tridong. As such, the Defendant’s drinking control point (07:52) on the ground that the Defendant’s blood alcohol concentration (05:0) started to flow into the Defendant’s body after about 30 minutes and around 30 minutes since the Defendant’s alcohol level began to flow into the Defendant’s body, it is reasonable to deem that the Defendant’s blood alcohol concentration (095%) measured after 39 minutes of alcohol control against the Defendant was higher than that of the enforcement point in the statement of reasons for appeal. If the Prosecutor stated in the prosecutor’s statement of reasons for appeal, the lower court did not err in its finding of facts on the part of the prosecutor itself, and therefore, it appears that the Defendant’s statement in the statement of reasons for appeal itself is “high”.

As long as it cannot be seen as 0.095% in favor of the defendant, it is reasonable to see that the number of blood alcohol at the point of regulation is 0.095% in favor of the defendant, and further, in light of the circumstance report of the driver with the driver with alcohol, the defendant stops on the side and sits on the driver's seat while under the influence of alcohol, although it can be sufficiently recognized that the blood alcohol concentration at the point of regulation at the point of drinking driving is 0.095% in favor of the defendant, the court below acquitted the defendant on the ground that the blood alcohol concentration at the point of regulation at the point of time of the defendant's final drinking alcohol level is 0.095% in consideration of the circumstance of the driver with alcohol reporting

B. The sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant (a prison term of six months, a stay of execution of two years, a stay of forty hours, and a community service order of 120 hours) is deemed to be undue and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The lower court’s determination of the lower court is based on the premise of mistake of facts.