The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. 1) Fact-finding 1) The Defendant was comprehensively delegated by E the authority to dispose of the land indicated in this part of the facts charged (hereinafter “instant land”) purchased in the name of H, as indicated in the facts charged in the lower judgment.

Therefore, even if there was no specific delegation of E, the defendant did not have the intent or ability to make the victim C complete the registration of transfer of ownership of the land.

subsection (b) of this section.

The judgment of the court below that found this part of the facts charged guilty is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2) On the charge of the crime of the 2017 Highest 2880 Case, the part concerning the crime committed in the judgment below, and the charge of the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Bodily Injury to Dangerous Driving) and the Road Traffic Act (hereinafter referred to as the “victim”) committed the Defendant’s vehicle (hereinafter referred to as the “victim’s vehicle”), the Defendant proceeded with the Victim G Driving Vehicle (hereinafter referred to as the “victim”) after shocking the Victim’s G Driving Vehicle (hereinafter referred to as the “victim”) while driving the Defendant’s vehicle. Accordingly, the damaged vehicle stopped on the front page by predicting the harming vehicle, and then repeating the harming vehicle again with the harming vehicle (hereinafter “second shock”). The accident of this case (hereinafter referred to as the “accident”).

However, the defendant did not recognize it at the time of the first shock, and the second shock was caused by the damaged vehicle in the future.

However, the judgment of the court below that found this part of the facts charged guilty is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B) The Defendant was requested by a police officer to take a drinking test after the instant accident, and conducted a breath measurement on a total of four occasions.