The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

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

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor of mistake of facts (as to the acquittal portion of reasons), the fact that the Defendant, while under the influence of alcohol, was unable to properly operate the brakes, did not take any measures against the victims by the negligence that led the Defendant’s automobile to drive on the side, and did not take any measures against the victim.

(b) Sentencing and the lower court: 8 months of imprisonment, 2 years of suspended sentence, and 40 hours of attending the law-abiding driving lecture;

2. Determination

A. We examine the judgment of the court below ex officio.

The court below acknowledged the defendant's injury of victim C, victim G, and victim E as stated in the judgment of the court below, and found the defendant not guilty on this part in the conclusion, considering that there is no proof of the prosecutor. The above judgment of the court below constitutes the order of reasons as stipulated in Article 361-5 subparagraph 11 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

B. Furthermore, we examine the Prosecutor’s grounds of appeal for mistake of facts.

According to the reinforcement evidence including the defendant's trial statement and the written diagnosis of injury, the defendant can be found guilty of violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Bodily Injury) of the defendant.

Therefore, we accept the prosecutor's assertion of mistake of facts.

3. If so, the judgment of the court below is reversed pursuant to Article 364(2) and (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the argument of unfair sentencing because there is a ground for reversal ex officio and there is a ground for misconception of facts by the prosecutor. It is again decided as follows.

[The reason for the judgment of multiple times] A criminal history of the crime was that the defendant, around April 16, 2019, was under the influence of alcohol concentration of 0.097%, in the state of being drunk on April 7, 2019, pursuant to the law located in 147-50% of the Sinyang-gu Law, Seoyang-gu.

At all times, a road that has broken away from a high speed road.