All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. (1) Although Defendant (1) did not drive a taxi after drinking alcohol, and responded normally to a police officer’s request for a drinking test, the lower court convicted Defendant 1 of the facts charged in this case by misunderstanding of the fact.

(2) The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (two years of suspended sentence for six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence of the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The lower court acknowledged the following facts based on the evidence duly adopted and examined by the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts: (i) the Defendant was on board a taxi after drinking; (ii) the male grandchild and one female grandchild were on board a taxi on their own; and (iii) the Defendant did not drive a taxi because the police officer was called up while the Defendant was on board, but he did not drive the taxi on his own; (iv) according to the black stuff image attached to the above taxi on June 11, 2012, the Defendant was driving the taxi on the taxi at around 00:48, while driving the taxi at around 00:49, and driving the taxi on his own; and (v) the Defendant did not respond to the Defendant’s breath alcohol test by taking into account all the circumstances such as the Defendant’s breath’s breath’s breath’s breath’s breath’s breath’s breath’s statement at the lower court; and (v) the Defendant’s b) the Defendant’s breath brea of alcohol.