The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, against B and C.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which convicted the defendant is erroneous in the misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (one year of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, and one hundred and twenty hours of community service order) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, the Defendant was sufficiently aware of the lower court’s misunderstanding of the facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's argument is without merit.

① Since the facts established in a criminal judgment which became final and conclusive on the same factual basis are material evidence, it is difficult to employ a criminal trial judgment, as it is difficult to do so.

Unless there are special circumstances recognized, the facts contrary thereto cannot be recognized (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Do11349, Dec. 24, 2009, etc.). ② However, in the case of the Daegu District Court Decision 2015 Godan 2212 (hereinafter “relevant criminal case”), the Defendant is a person who is engaged in driving a motor vehicle of the E Abdo test.

On October 24, 2015, the Defendant driven the said car under the influence of alcohol as described in paragraph 1 of around 17:28, and driven the three-lanes in front of the 'G' in the Daegu-gu Seoul Metropolitan City F, along the two-lanes in the four-lane radius of foreign exchange banks from the three-lane radius of the environmental office.

At this point, there is a three-distance intersection where signal lights are installed in the front, so the driver of the vehicle has a duty of care to look at the front and right and the right and the right of the driver of the vehicle, and to prevent the accident in advance by using the steering direction and the brake accurately.

Nevertheless, the defendant neglected to drive stroke while under the influence of alcohol and has a signal waiting in one-lane direction.