1. The judgment below is reversed.

2. The defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months and a fine of thirty million won.

3. The defendant is above.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In relation to Defendant 1’s crime of violating the Road Traffic Act (driving) by misunderstanding the facts, the Defendant did not have driven a 10-meter section or driving a breab while under the influence of alcohol, as stated in this part of the facts charged.

However, the judgment of the court below that found this part of the facts charged guilty is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2) The punishment sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (six months of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, and forty hours of lecture attendance order for compliance driving) is too unreasonable.

B. Inspection 1) In light of the fact-misunderstanding and legal principles, the place where the Defendant misunderstanding the error of facts and the Defendant driven the erroneous soil, there is no other manager or blocking device, and the vehicle could freely pass, it constitutes “road” under the Road Traffic Act.

Therefore, the court below acquitted the Defendant on the violation of the Road Traffic Act (unlicensed driving) and the Guarantee of Automobile Compensation Act on the ground that the above place is not “road” under the Road Traffic Act, and erred by misapprehending the legal principles, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2) The above sentence committed by the lower court against the Defendant is too uneased and unfair.

2. Examination ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant and prosecutor ex officio.

On the other hand, a prosecutor has filed a motion to change the indictment in the same manner as the previous one of the facts charged with the violation of the Road Traffic Act (unlicensed driving) and the violation of the Guarantee of Automobile Compensation Act among the facts charged in the instant case, and the same as the previous one of the facts charged in the judgment re-written under the following. This court has changed the subject of adjudication by granting permission.

Therefore, the revised charges are found guilty as follows, and they are concurrent crimes between the violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving of alcohol) as stated in the judgment below and the violation of Article 37 of the Criminal Act against the defendant. In accordance with Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act, the above revised charges are one of the crimes.