The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul Northern District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the grounds of appeal on the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (the death or injury before the risk)

A. Unlike the crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes due to drinking, the crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes is limited to “a state in which normal driving is difficult due to influence of drinking,” regardless of whether a driver exceeds the statutory minimum standard level of alcohol level in the blood during the crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act. The act of inflicting bodily injury or death upon a person while driving a motor vehicle in such a state is punished. This is because the crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes due to drinking requires a constructive element of the crime of occupational and practical injury and the relation between the occurrence of the result (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Do7143, Nov. 13, 2008).

The phrase “A police officer,” who was called, was called by the Defendant, was called “I am on one occasion at the same time” to the police officer who was called upon by the victim’s report, but he could not do so. A police station, in response to the police officer’s instructions, was on board the patrol vehicle and went to the police station, was investigated by the police station, and stated accurately his assertion about the situation at the time of the accident, and the statement on the situation of the driver’s statement prepared by the police officer.