The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. According to C’s testimony, which is a police officer regulating the gist of the grounds for appeal, the Defendant was found to have driven up to 04:40 on January 14, 2018, which is the control point, and even if the Defendant driven up to 03:40, the Defendant was found to have been driving, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine or misunderstanding the fact that the blood alcohol content was 0.05% or more at the time of driving since the blood alcohol content had been in contact with the mouth at the time of enforcement point.

2. (1) The lower court determined that: (a) the date and time of drunk driving indicated in the facts charged is insufficient to recognize that there was no evidence to acknowledge that the Defendant was a drunk driving at the above time on January 14, 2018, or on January 14, 2018; (b) the Defendant’s final date and time of drunk driving at around 03:44 even according to the inquiry as a result of the control of drunk driving; (c) the blood alcohol concentration at around 0.056% as indicated in the facts charged is not sufficient to recognize that the Defendant’s final alcohol concentration at around 03:44, which was 05% or more; (d) the Defendant’s final alcohol concentration at around 40% on the ground that it was difficult to recognize the Defendant’s final blood content at around 40:40% on the ground that the Defendant’s alcohol concentration at around 40:40% on the blood content at around 404,000.

(2) In light of the records, a thorough examination of the evidence added to the testimony of the witness C by the court below and the examination of the defendant in the trial room, the above determination by the court below is just and acceptable, and the judgment of the court below is erroneous.