The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of three million won.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (the factual error and the misapprehension of the legal principle) determined that the drinking driving of the defendant constitutes an emergency evacuation, but the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principle by misunderstanding the fact that the drinking driving of the defendant was the only means to avoid the danger of the defendant's wife's clothes, and by widely recognizing it without strictly judging the legal principles of emergency evacuation.

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case was sentenced by the Suwon District Court on May 11, 2007 to a fine of one million won for a violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving). On December 5, 2008, the Defendant was sentenced to a fine of one hundred and fifty thousand won for a violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving) by the same court.

On October 7, 2012, the Defendant, while under the influence of alcohol of 0.066% of blood alcohol concentration, driven a Cbe-cr cruise car in the section of about 10km from the front of the “Korea-Sae Village” located in the Gluri-si in the Gluri-si, which is located in the Gluri-si, to the front of the “new hospital located in the Sluri-si” located in the same military.

B. The lower court determined as follows: D and E’s legal statement, the report on the main driver’s situation statement, the certificate of Tongwon, diagnosis certificate, confirmation of entrance discharge, fact inquiry reply, and recording book; ① the Defendant, while drinking with his friendly group on the day of the instant case, was accommodated in Gelel located in the Gyeonggi-gun F with his wife E while drinking with his friendly group on the day of the instant case; ② E wanted to look at the same cause as the Defendant complaining of the her clothes and dies because he was the same, ③ the Defendant requested D to request D, the main driver of the said telephone, to leave the emergency vehicle with his personal phone at around 21:04 on the day of the instant case; ④ D’s demand that the Defendant act as his representative for a cargo driver even if having been driven from his mother fire station to the above telephone.