The judgment of the court below is reversed.

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

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact, misunderstanding of the legal principle 1) Defendant was at the time of Defendant’s driving and at the time of measuring alcohol concentration during blood transfusion, and thus, Defendant was at least 0.05% of Defendant’s blood alcohol concentration in the blood transfusion at the time of actual driving solely on the ground that: (a) six minutes have elapsed since the completion of driving; (b) the alcohol concentration in the blood from the respiratory measuring instrument was at least 0.057%; and (c) 23 minutes have passed since the completion of driving; and (d) the alcohol concentration in the blood from the blood from the blood measured by blood collection was at least 0.05% at the time of actual driving.

It shall not be readily concluded.

2) Article 44(4) of the Road Traffic Act uniformly prescribes the standard of the state of alcohol prohibited from driving to “where the alcohol level of the driver’s blood is at least 0.05%” without excluding individual characteristics such as the physical characteristics of the driver and alcohol decomposition capacity, etc. Therefore, this is contrary to the principle of equality, and Article 148-2(2) of the Road Traffic Act, while driving a drinking alcohol.

Even if there is no danger and safety driving, it is against the principle of excessive prohibition and the principle of proportionality.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (one million won penalty) is too unreasonable.

2. In the trial at the court below, the prosecutor applied for permission to amend an indictment with the content that “0.065% alcohol level during blood” was changed to “0.057% during blood transfusion” among the facts charged in the instant case, and since this court permitted this and changed to the subject of the judgment, the judgment of the court below was no longer maintained in this respect.

However, notwithstanding the above reasons for reversal ex officio, the defendant's assertion of mistake or misunderstanding of legal principles is still subject to the judgment of this court, and this is examined below.

3. Judgment on the Defendant’s misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles

A. Based on the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below as to the driving of drinking water.