The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Reasons for appeal;

A. In a misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, the Defendant did not drive drinking at the time of the instant case, and the Defendant refused to measure drinking because voluntary accompanying to the Defendant is not legitimate.

Even though the crime of violating the Road Traffic Act was not established, the judgment of the court below convicting the facts charged of this case is erroneous in the misunderstanding of facts or in the misapprehension of legal principles.

B. The sentence of the lower court that is unfair in sentencing (an amount of five million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Although the Defendant alleged the same purport in the lower court’s judgment, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant charges by integrating the evidence duly adopted and investigated, and rejected the Defendant’s allegation on the grounds of detailed reasons in the part of “decision on the issue” as to the said argument.

Examining the aforementioned facts and judgments by comparing them with records, the lower court’s determination that found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged is justifiable. In so determining, it erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion

subsection (b) of this section.

B. Improper sentencing is a discretionary judgment that takes into account the factors constituting conditions for sentencing prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act based on statutory penalty, within a reasonable and appropriate scope.

However, considering the unique area of sentencing of sentencing of the first instance that is respected under the principle of trial priority and the principle of direct jurisdiction taken by our criminal litigation law and the nature of the ex post facto review of the appellate court, the sentencing of sentencing of the first instance was exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion when comprehensively taking into account the factors and guidelines for sentencing specified in the first instance sentencing trial process.

In full view of the data newly discovered in the course of the appellate court's sentencing hearing, it is necessary to maintain the first sentencing judgment as it is.