All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles (as to the case No. 2019No. 99), the Defendant is a Mepta (hereinafter referred to as “philopon”).

In addition, this part of the facts charged does not specify the time, place, method, etc. of the Defendant’s administration of phiphonephones, and thus, it is difficult to view that the facts charged were specified. 2) In light of the circumstances such as the fact that the Defendant’s mistake is against himself, the distance of driving at the time of drinking and driving without a license was short, and the economic difficulty is making it difficult, the punishment imposed by the lower court is too unreasonable.

B. The sentence imposed by the prosecutor by the court below is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. Decision 1 on the assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles requires that the facts should be specified by specifying the time, place, and method of a crime (Article 254(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act). The purport of the law requiring the specification of the facts charged is to facilitate the exercise of the defendant’s right of defense. As such, the facts charged is sufficient to include the facts in a way that can identify other facts. Even if the date, time, place, etc. of the crime are not specifically indicated in the indictment, general indication is inevitable in light of the nature of the crime, and if it does not go against the purport of the law that specifies the facts charged, and it does not interfere with the defendant’s right of defense, the contents of the indictment cannot be deemed not to have been specified (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2007Do2694, Jun. 14, 2007; 2008Do4854, Jul. 24, 2008).