The judgment below

Part of acquittal shall be reversed.

Of the facts charged in the instant case, the point of violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving).

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The punishment of the court below (the three-year imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. In full view of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, such as the misconception of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles (driving in violation of the Road Traffic Act) and the protocol of examination of the defendant by the prosecutor, it is sufficiently recognized that the defendant has driven at least under the influence of alcohol with a blood alcohol concentration of at least 0.1%. 2) The sentence of the court below on unreasonable sentencing is too unreasonable and unfair.

2. Determination:

A. Prior to the judgment on the ground for appeal ex officio, the prosecutor examined ex officio prior to the judgment on the ground for appeal of ex officio, and the prosecutor applied for changes in the indictment to the purport that “under the influence of alcohol with 0.162% or more of blood alcohol” among the charges of the violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving) that the court below acquitted, “under the influence of alcohol with 0.162% or more of blood alcohol” is changed to “under the influence of alcohol with 0.1% or more of blood alcohol concentration.” As such, the part of the judgment below’s judgment

However, in light of the above changed facts charged, the prosecutor's ground of appeal on the acquittal part of the judgment below is still subject to determination, and the following is examined.

B. As to the prosecutor’s assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles as to the acquittal portion, the court below did not recognize that the Defendant’s blood alcohol concentration was 0.1% or more at the time of the instant accident, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, in light of the following: (a) considering that the premise facts for the Defendant’s application of the above mark formula, such as the volume of alcohol taken by the Defendant, the time during which alcohol was completed, and the body weight cannot be seen as having been proven to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt; and (b) the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to acknowledge that the Defendant’s blood alcohol concentration was 0.