The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 2,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant did not have committed a mistake in fact against the signal.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (2.5 million won) is too heavy.

2. Determination

A. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the Defendant ex officio, the summary of the facts charged of the violation of the Road Traffic Act among the facts charged in the instant case is that “the Defendant driven a B rocketing car while under the influence of 0.082% of blood alcohol concentration.” As to the facts charged, Articles 148-2(2)3 and 44(1) of the Road Traffic Act, which are imprisonment with prison labor for not more than six months or a fine not exceeding three million won (not less than 0.05% and less than 0.1% of blood alcohol concentration) should have been applied. However, the lower court maintained the application of the statutory penalty in that it is no longer than six months but more than three million won or a fine not less than five million won and less than three million won and thus, Article 148-2(2)2 and Article 44(1) of the Road Traffic Act (the blood alcohol concentration of not less than 0.1% and less than five million won) of the Road Traffic Act.

Nevertheless, the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of facts is still subject to the judgment of this court, and this article examines different provisions.

B. As to the assertion of mistake of facts, the following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, namely, ① the Defendant appears to have entered the intersection without viewing the electric direction signal anticipated to be changed to that of a going-way, ② the victim C entered the intersection by viewing that the signal was changed to the going-way signal while waiting for the front signal before the stop line entering the intersection, and stated that the Defendant was in conflict with the vehicle driven by the Defendant. ③ The signal system of the intersection of this case is as follows: (a) the Defendant, like the Defendant, reported the straight line signal at the intersection before the intersection of this case to the intersection of this case; and (b) the vehicle reaching the stop line before entering the intersection of this case.