The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.

However, for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Although the Defendant could recognize the fact that he had driven the instant car while under the influence of alcohol, the lower court acquitted the Defendant of the charge of driving alcohol among the facts charged in the instant case.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (limited to eight months of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, 80 hours of community service order, and 40 hours of order to attend a law-abiding driving lecture) is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal to amend the bill of indictment ex officio, the prosecutor changed the applicable provisions of the Road Traffic Act to "Article 148-2 (2) 3 and Article 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act", and applied for the amendment of the bill of indictment to "0.072% of the blood alcohol concentration" among the crimes of violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving) and the violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving without a license). The court made an application for the amendment of the bill of indictment to "0.05% of the blood alcohol concentration" in three parallels of violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving without a license). Since the court changed the subject of the judgment by permitting it, the judgment of the court below was no longer maintained.

B. The prosecutor's argument of mistake of facts concerning the changed facts charged is still subject to the judgment of this court, regardless of the above reasons for ex officio reversal of judgment as to the grounds for appeal.

The following facts are acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below and the court below, namely, the defendant stated that he dice 4-5 World Cup was breath before driving at the prosecution, and H made a statement with the investigative agency that "at first met before the defendant's home on the day of the accident" in telephone communications with the investigative agency (the defendant was fright at the court below when the witness went to the defendant's home. The defendant made a statement consistent with the defendant's argument that "I dice breath of the witness so that he was breath of the defendant's house" and the defendant did not enter the house and she was under the apartment house.