The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 10 million.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In light of the legal principles, the Defendant could not have predicted that he would drive without a drinking license at the time of drinking, and the Defendant was in the state of mental disorder or mental disorder at the time of driving, as he left a substitute driver and was in an infinitely driving on the water in the vehicle after leaving the substitute driver.

B. The Defendant asserts that the sentence of the lower court (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable, and the prosecutor asserts that the lower court’s sentence is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Article 10(3) of the Criminal Act provides that Article 10(3) of the Criminal Act regarding the defendant's assertion of misapprehension of the legal principle does not apply to the act of a person who predicted the occurrence of danger and caused a mental disorder by his/her own. This provision includes not only the free act in the cause by intention but also the free act in the cause by negligence, and it can be predicted that the occurrence of danger was caused by his/her own mental disorder.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2005Do6758 Decided November 25, 2005). However, in light of the fact that the Defendant had been punished seven times for the same crime, even though his driver's license was revoked at the time of the crime of this case, the Defendant used the Defendant's vehicle without a license to drive the vehicle at a middle school and went to the seat of the Defendant's vehicle after drinking the vehicle at a meeting place, it is reasonable to deem that the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol by himself even though he was sufficiently aware or could have been aware of the risk of repeating the crime of driving without a license for drinking, such as this case, under the influence of alcohol.

Therefore, even if the defendant committed each of the crimes of this case in the state that he did not have the ability to discern things or make decisions due to his principal or graduate, he may have the mental disorder in accordance with Article 10(3) of the Criminal Act.