The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 2,500,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Although there is a fact that the Defendant was a drunk driver, the Defendant’s act constitutes an emergency evacuation under Article 22(1) of the Criminal Act and thus, the illegality of the Defendant’s act is dismissed as it constitutes a crime of emergency evacuation under Article 22(1) of the Criminal Act.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to emergency evacuation, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (fine 4 million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In regard to the assertion of misapprehension of the legal principles, an emergency evacuation under Article 22(1) of the Criminal Act refers to an act with considerable reason to avoid the present danger to one’s own or another’s legal interests. In this context, to constitute “an act with considerable reason,” the act of escape must be the only means to protect the legal interests faced with danger, the act of escape should be the only means to protect the legal interests in danger, the second victim should be the most minor damage. Third, the profit preserved by the act of escape should be superior to the profit that is infringed upon. Fourth, the act of escape must be the appropriate means in light of social ethics or the overall spirit of legal order

(2) According to the evidence duly admitted and examined, the lower court: (a) deemed that the Defendant drinked on the day of the instant case and moved an article of acting driving on behalf of the Defendant at 2-clocks of the new wall; (b) however, in the Defendant’s vehicle parked on the 3-clocks of the new wall, the sound of the horn began considerably; (c) some of the residents of the Defendant’s vehicle parked on the 1st floor and cut off the vehicle; and (d) there is a defect in the sound that some of the residents gets off to the 1st floor and cut off the vehicle; and (e) the Defendant driven the Defendant’s vehicle in its neighborhood.