The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,500,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. The gist of the grounds for appeal is as follows: (a) the Defendant completed driving at around 03:32, different from the description in the primary facts charged; (b) the Defendant’s actual driving time from the time of alcohol measurement to the time of alcohol measurement; (c) the Defendant’s application of the aforementioned dmark formula on the premise that the Defendant’s dmark formula fell under the blood alcohol concentration below 0.10%; (d) the place where the Defendant caused the traffic accident is the caron road at the time of the traffic accident; (e) the Defendant’s vehicle was the caron road at the time of the traffic accident; and (e) there is a high probability that the accident may occur even if the Defendant does not drink at night, taking full account of the following: (a) the Defendant’s alcohol concentration above 0.136% or above at the time of driving

It is difficult to see it.

In doing so, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Before deciding on the grounds for appeal by the Defendant’s ex officio, the prosecutor shall, at the time of the trial, maintain the existing facts charged as the primary facts charged. In addition, the following facts charged are added to the facts charged. In addition, “Article 148-2(2)3 and Article 44(1) of the Road Traffic Act and Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act” were added to “Article 148-2(2)3 and Article 44(1) of the Road Traffic Act and Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act,” the application of the law was applied, and the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained as it is by permitting it.

However, despite the above reasons for reversal of authority, the defendant's misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles as to the primary facts charged are still subject to the judgment of this court.

3. Judgment as to the Defendant’s mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles as to the primary facts charged

A. On September 19, 2017, the Defendant, while under the influence of alcohol at around 03:5 on September 19, 2017, he/she was aware of the main facts charged, from the Sinpo-si in the Sinpo-si in Gwangju-si.