The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant, misunderstanding the fact, merely drank three illness a week after finding a driver’s license after the instant traffic accident, and drank three illness a week, and did not have been driven under the influence of alcohol concentration in blood as stated in the facts charged.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty is erroneous by mistake of facts.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (an amount of KRW 3 million) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, it is recognized that the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol with 0.151% alcohol level as indicated in the instant facts charged.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's argument is without merit.

① The Defendant, while driving on the day of the instant case, conflict with the parked vehicle of the witness E of the lower court, and upon the report of the witness E, the police officer was subject to the investigation in the course of collision with the Defendant’s house.

② At the court of first instance, E stated in the court of first instance that “At the time, at the time of the accident, the Defendant was unable to have a normal conversation in the state of drinking, and the Defendant was on the home while getting a driver’s license at the time of the accident, and the Defendant was almost similar in the status of the Defendant at the time of the accident.”

E’s statement is consistent, specific, and reliable from the investigative agency to the court of original trial, and it is not possible to find any especially inconsistent or inconsistent with the rule of experience.

③ According to the video images taken by the Defendant upon the occurrence of an accident, E demanded the Defendant to prepare a letter to the effect that “the occurrence of an accident due to drinking of the Defendant” was “the occurrence of an accident due to drinking of the Defendant,” and whether the Defendant “the head of the accident should not be deducted.”

"............."