The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant shall be innocent.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Fact-misunderstanding that Defendant 1 driven alcohol at the time of the instant case, while driving alcohol at the time of the instant case, Defendant 2 was drank alcohol at the house during the period of around 23:57 on April 16, 2016 on the same day as the time when the driving time was measured for drinking as of April 16, 2016, and as such, Defendant 23:57% of alcohol concentration in the blood as stated in the facts charged cannot be deemed to be the alcohol concentration in the blood that the Defendant driven.

B. The punishment sentenced by the court below to the defendant (the punishment amounting to 6 million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Summary of the facts charged and the judgment of the court below

A. On April 16, 2016, around 23:05, the Defendant driven a DNA car in the state of alcohol alcohol concentration of about 50 meters from the distance of about 10 meters to the front road of the Cju apartment apartment 102-dong apartment 102.

B. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged by compiling the evidence as indicated in its judgment.

3. Determination on whether a deliberation was made

A. In a criminal trial, the recognition of criminal facts ought to be based on strict evidence with probative value that leads a judge to have a reasonable doubt. Thus, in a case where the prosecutor’s proof does not reach the extent that such conviction would lead to such conviction, the determination ought to be made on the part of the defendant even if he/she was suspected of guilt, such as contradictory or uncomfortable dismissal in the defendant’s assertion or defense (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Do231, Jun. 28, 2012). (b) Taking full account of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the lower court and the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the trial court, it is difficult to acknowledge that the defendant was driven under the influence of alcohol concentration of 0.057% at the time of the instant case, and there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

1) Although the Defendant was on the second trial date of the lower court, the Defendant would make an additional entry following the completion of driving at the time of the instant case.