The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of three million won.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

Summary of Reasons for appeal

(a) Fact misunderstanding 1) Although the Defendant parked a vehicle at the construction site and made resistance to the parts, the Defendant did not have any intention to interfere with the business.

2) The Defendant did not insult the victim H by citing the victim H.

3) Although the Defendant was making a drinking while driving the alcohol, the measurement of the instant drinking was conducted without working at the time when 30 minutes have not passed since the Defendant was drinking, and thus, considering the possibility that the blood alcohol concentration at the time was likely to have risen, it cannot be readily concluded that the blood alcohol concentration at the time when the Defendant was driving is 0.109%.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (an amount of KRW 6.5 million) is too unreasonable.

We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant.

With respect to the violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving of alcohol) from among the facts charged against the Defendant at the trial of the public prosecutor, “Article 148-2(2)2 of the Road Traffic Act” is “Article 148-2(2)3 of the Road Traffic Act” and “Article 148-2(2)3 of the Road Traffic Act” in the facts charged as “ around September 18:40 on September 26, 2014,” and “within 17:50 on September 26, 2014,” respectively, “10.109% alcohol concentration during blood transfusion” was amended to “0.5% or more of alcohol concentration during blood transfusion,” and the judgment of the court below was modified to that effect, and thus the judgment below is no longer maintained.

However, the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts is still subject to the judgment of this court, despite the above reasons for reversal of authority.

Judgment on the misunderstanding of Facts

A. The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, i.e., the victim E, by the investigative agency up to the lower court’s trial, parked the vehicle at the construction site and expressed the desire to the public parts of the construction including himself, and on the site upon receiving a report.