The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for up to six months.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles, first, the place of this case where the defendant driven is an apartment underground parking lot, and the road traffic law does not apply to the defendant's act, since it is not a road stipulated in Article 2 subparagraph 1 of the Road Traffic Act

Second, since the defendant's drinking measurement is not a drinking volume at the time of actual driving, but a drinking measurement conducted after more than one hour after the driving, there is no evidence to recognize the drinking volume at the time of actual driving.

However, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Before determining the grounds for appeal by the Defendant’s ex officio, prior to the determination of the grounds for appeal by the Defendant’s ex officio, the Prosecutor applied for amendments to the indictment with the content that “0.117% of alcohol level in the blood transfusion around January 27, 2017” in the part of the facts charged in the instant case to “0.117% in light of the blood alcohol level around 04:50, Jan. 27, 2017” was changed to “03:31, Jan. 27, 2017,” and this Court changed to the subject of the judgment against the Defendant. Accordingly, the lower judgment was no longer maintained in this respect.

B. We examine the judgment of the court below on the assertion of mistake of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles, even if there are grounds for ex officio reversal, since the defendant's mistake of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles still are subject to the judgment of this court within the scope of

1) As to the first argument, the Road Traffic Act provides that the use of a motor vehicle on the road “road” according to its original method of use, as well as on the “place other than the road” constitutes a “driving” prohibited by the crime of violating the Road Traffic Act (toxicated Driving) (the Road Traffic Act).