The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

No. 1, 2, 4 through 6, 8 of seized evidence.

The court below found the defendant not guilty of the violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving) that drives a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol 0.102% of the charges against the defendant, and found the defendant guilty of the violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving under the influence of alcohol 0.090% of the blood alcohol level within the scope of the same charges.

On this issue, only the defendant filed an appeal against the guilty portion of the judgment of the court below, and the prosecutor did not file an appeal.

Therefore, the part of the violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving) which the lower court rendered a not-guilty verdict on the grounds of its reasoning is to be judged again by the lower court, as it goes against the principle of no appeal (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2004Do5014, Oct. 28, 2004; 2009Do12934, Jan. 14, 2010).

Therefore, the scope of this court's judgment is limited to the conviction part of the judgment below.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

The punishment of the lower court (one year and six months, etc.) shall be too unreasonable.

Before the judgment on the grounds for appeal for ex officio, the Prosecutor applied for changes to the bill of amendment in the name of the crime in the indictment in the trial. The Prosecutor applied "Violation of the Control of Firearms, Swords, Explosives, etc. Act" as "Violation of the Safety Management of Firearms, Swords, Explosives, etc. Act" in the applicable Acts and subordinate statutes as "Act on the Safety Management of Guns, Swords, Swords, Explosives, etc.", and paragraph (4) of the facts charged as stated below [the reasons for the judgment used in multiple times], and this Court changed the subject of the judgment by permitting it.

However, the judgment of the court below, inasmuch as the above facts constituting the crime and the remaining facts constituting the crime are deemed to constitute concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, is ultimately maintained.