The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The lower court recognized the Defendant as 0.116% in accordance with the result of the measurement of alcohol alcohol concentration at around 07:40, when the accident occurred, on the ground that the Defendant misunderstandings the fact that he drinks until 05:00 on the day of the accident.

However, since the Defendant dices alcohol until 07:20 on the day of the accident, it can be deemed that the blood alcohol level was risen at the time of the measurement of alcohol level around 08:12. Thus, the result of the measurement of alcohol level alone cannot be deemed to have proved that the blood alcohol level exceeded 0.05%, which is the punishment standard, and there is no other evidence to deem that the blood alcohol level at the time of the accident exceeded the punishment standard, and there is no evidence to support that the Defendant driven a vehicle under the influence of alcohol level difficult to drive normally.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of both the defendant's violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes and the violation of the Road Traffic Act.

B. The sentence of imprisonment (one year of imprisonment) imposed by the court below is too heavy or unreasonable.

2. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for ex officio appeal, the Prosecutor applied for the amendment of an indictment to change the “undertoxic alcohol level of 0.116%” among the facts charged in the instant case to “under the influence of alcohol level of 0.16% or more” as “under the influence of alcohol level of 0.1% or more” in the instant facts charged by the Prosecutor, and the subject of the judgment following the permission of the modification of an indictment by the court. As such, the judgment of the court

3. As seen in the judgment of the court below on the assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles still becomes subject to the judgment of this court within the scope of the modified facts charged.

A. The lower court’s judgment.