The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. On January 10, 2019, the summary of the grounds for appeal (based on factual errors, misunderstanding of legal principles) the Defendant driven the Defendant’s vehicle under the influence of alcohol with a blood alcohol concentration of about 0.072% at a section of about 10 meters from the 10-meter radius of the Changwon-si, Changwon-si, in front of the Belel of Changwon-si, in the same Gu C.

The lower court acquitted the Defendant on the ground that “the act of the Defendant driven as stated in the facts charged in the instant case, as an act to avoid the present danger to his or another person’s legal interests, constitutes an emergency evacuation.”

However, the defendant's act of driving a vehicle under the influence of alcohol does not meet the requirements of emergency evacuation, such as supplement and balance, and thus, illegality is not dismissed. The defendant's act of driving a vehicle under the influence of alcohol is not justified because it does not meet the requirements of emergency evacuation such as supplement and balance.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the above facts and by misapprehending the legal principles, which acquitted the defendant.

2. In order to constitute “an act with reasonable grounds” under Article 22(1) of the relevant legal principles refers to an act with reasonable grounds to avoid the present danger to one’s own or another’s legal interests, and in this context, the act of escape must be the only means to protect the legal interests in danger, and the act of escape must be the only means to protect the legal interests in danger, second, the act of escape must be the most minor damage to the victim, third, the profit preserved by the act of escape should be more superior to the profit infringed by it, and fourth, the act of escape must be the appropriate means in light of social ethics or the overall spirit of legal order.