The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

Considering the fact that the Defendant’s vehicle was driven on September 4, 2012 among the facts charged in the instant case, the lower court acquitted the Defendant of the driving of the vehicle on September 4, 2012, in view of the following: (a) the statement of misunderstanding of facts E; (b) the location of the Defendant’s vehicle and damaged vehicle; (c) the topography of the place of accident; and (d) the degree of damage

The defendant asserts that, with respect to the punishment (six months of imprisonment) imposed by the court below on the defendant, the defendant is too unreasonable, and the prosecutor argues that the defendant is too uneasible and unfair.

Judgment

Around September 4, 2012, the Defendant driven a motor vehicle Dwork Ⅲ under the influence of alcohol concentration of approximately 0.248% on September 4, 2012, at around 20:40, in September 4, 2012, the Defendant of the charge of violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving) while under the influence of alcohol concentration of approximately 0.248%.

The judgment of the court below held that, in light of the fact that if the defendant was walking the vehicle at the time of the accident, E was aware of the occurrence of the starting point in the very short time before and after the accident, E was unaware of it, and E was not aware of it, the distance from the scene of the vehicle at the time of the accident does not exceed 1m, and there was no person who directly observed driving the vehicle at the time. In light of the fact that the defendant did not walk the starting point of the vehicle at the time of the accident and there was no person who directly observed driving the vehicle at the time.

The lower court acquitted the Defendant on this part of the facts charged on the ground that there cannot be a reasonable doubt as to the possibility that the said vehicle might have become brooms in the small slope of brooms.

However, in full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the court below and the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below, the defendant was at the time of the defendant's vehicle under the influence of alcohol as above.