The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant of mistake of facts was unable to drink more than one disease of usual socopty due to urology and high blood pressure, and even if he drank only to the extent of one disease of socopty immediately before the driving of the instant drinking, the blood alcohol concentration level compared to the above drinking volume was measured relatively higher than 0.312%. If the Defendant dices alcohol according to the above drinking measurements, the Defendant could not drive a complicated road at the place where the Defendant started the first driving without any accident even within the parking lot in the old Socco apartment complex located in the Yellow-dong of the old-si in which the Defendant caused a noise.

Therefore, there is a defect in the drinking measuring instrument used at the time of the drinking test of this case, so it is highly likely that the blood alcohol concentration level is very high compared to the drinking volume.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of the blood alcohol concentration of 0.312% of the defendant's drunk driving as it is is is erroneous in the misapprehension of the facts and affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence of unfair sentencing (one year of imprisonment) by the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court on the assertion of mistake of facts, the fact that the Defendant was at the time of drinking alcohol driving in the instant case, due to the urology and high blood pressure, is recognized.

However, on the other hand, the court below reversed the previous statement that the defendant 1 was drinking one disease only after being investigated by the police on May 10, 2012, which is acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, i.e., the defendant stated that he was drinking two illnesss at the time of the first alcohol alcohol test (the 7th page of the investigation record) on May 6, 201, and that he was drinking one disease at the time of being investigated by the police on May 10, 2012. The defendant was not consistent with the defendant's statement made by the investigative agency on the kind or quantity of drinking, and ii) at the time of the first alcohol alcohol test.