The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant asserts that he had not driven a drinking, and there is only a fact that he had a fluence of half of the clothes stored in the cargo vehicle after he had been driving.

Nevertheless, the lower court recognized that “the Defendant had driven alcohol while drinking alcohol,” and accepted 0.201% of alcohol concentration among the blood transfusions calculated under the preceding provision.

Therefore, the court below erred by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. Legal misunderstanding of the legal principles, even if the Defendant had driven drinking,

Even if the defendant's drinking driving time and drinking measurement time are 31/1, and the alcohol concentration at the time of drinking measurement is highly likely to rise, so the defendant's blood alcohol concentration at the time of drinking is likely to be lower than 0.201% calculated based on the alcohol concentration during blood actually measured.

Therefore, the Defendant’s alcohol concentration in blood at the time of driving alcohol exceeds 0.2%, which is the punishment standard under Article 148-2(2)1 of the Road Traffic Act.

It shall not be readily concluded.

(c)

Even if the defendant alleged unfair sentencing, he/she was driving under the influence of alcohol content 0.201% in blood.

However, in light of the fact that the Defendant’s health is not good due to high blood pressure, urology, and kidney diseases, and that he must undergo an early escape surgery, and that the instant crime is ex post concurrent crimes with obstruction of performance of official duties, etc. which became final and conclusive on March 18, 2016, and that the Defendant should complete his study and bear expenses and living expenses for children, the lower court’s punishment (three months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court based on the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court regarding the assertion of mistake of facts, namely, H of the original appellate witness, around July 27, 2015.