All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles (related to the violation of the Road Traffic Act (related to the violation of the provisions of the Road Traffic Act) clearly destroyed only the vehicle which was parked in the state of parking. Thus, Article 148 of the Road Traffic Act is not applicable, but Article 156 subparagraph 10 of the same Act. However, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles, thereby misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles, thereby finding the guilty guilty of this part of the facts charged as a violation of Article 148 of the same Act. 2) The sentence of the court below on unreasonable sentencing (limited

B. Prosecutor 1) In full view of the evidence submitted by a prosecutor, the court below erred in finding the Defendant not guilty of this part of the facts charged, by misunderstanding the facts, although it could be sufficiently recognized that the Defendant intentionally refused to measure alcohol, and the court below erred in finding the Defendant not guilty of this part of the facts charged. 2) The sentence of the court below on unreasonable sentencing is too unreasonable and unfair

2. Determination

A. In full view of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor as to the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the court below was just in finding the defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case by applying Article 148 of the Road Traffic Act, not Article 156 subparagraph 10 of the same Act, and there

(The first shocked vehicle of the defendant is a difference in parking or stopping, but the police has caused a danger and obstacle to traffic by inducing the defendant in the course of the defendant's escape as it is after the shock, and the second shocked vehicle is not a parked vehicle). The defendant's allegation of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles is without merit.

B. In addition to the evidence admitted by the court below as to the prosecutor's assertion of mistake, it is difficult to see that the defendant intentionally failed to comply with a drinking test to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Therefore, it is true.