The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact, the Defendant, who misunderstanding the fact, driven an ozone under the status of not less than 0.05% alcohol content in blood.

Although there is no sufficient evidence to determine the seal, the judgment of the court below that found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts and adversely affected the judgment.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (an amount of KRW 1.5 million) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. First of all, the Defendant’s defense counsel held that the witness E and F of the lower court was smelled by the Defendant.

Since the time when the defendant stated again returned to the scene of an accident, the witness of the court below asserts that the legal statement of the witness of the court below cannot be used as evidence concerning the defendant's state of living at the time of the accident

However, the facts charged of the instant case revealed that the Defendant left the scene of the accident immediately after the Defendant paid the accident and went to the bath again and driving the drinking again to the house. Thus, it is evident that the witness’s statement to the effect that he was taking smell around that time constitutes evidence supporting the facts charged.

Therefore, rather than the above section, the defense counsel's argument disputing the drinking operation at the time of the collision is rejected as it is irrelevant to the facts charged.

In full view of the following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, namely, that the Defendant sniffly sniffly driven by the Defendant at the time, the Defendant sniffly booms around the surrounding people, such as the Defendant’s bath, and the police officer upon receiving a report, the Defendant sniffyed in the Defendant’s entrance even around the time when the police officer arrived at the site, and the Defendant sniffyed, and the Defendant 0.133% of the Defendant’s blood alcohol concentration during the alcohol measurement at around 20: (a) the Defendant’s blood alcohol concentration was 0.05% or more during blood, the judgment of the court below is justified.