The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The sentence against the accused shall be 5,000,000 won.

Defendant. A fine.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The misapprehension of the legal principle merely concealed the vehicle in front of it at the wind that makes it late to confirm the signal while driving after the Defendant took sufficient waters in the vehicle after drinking, and did not have a situation where normal driving was difficult due to the influence of drinking at the time.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which recognized the defendant's crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the grounds of unreasonable sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. The crime of violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Death or Injury caused by Dangerous Driving) due to the determination of the misapprehension of the legal principle as to the assertion of the misapprehension of the legal principle is subject to punishment, regardless of whether or not the blood alcohol level exceeds the statutory minimum level in the blood alcohol level formally, a driver is in a situation where normal driving is difficult due to the influence of drinking, and the act of causing injury or death of a person while driving a motor vehicle

(See Supreme Court Decision 2008Do7143 Decided November 13, 2008). The legal provision of this case is based on aggravated punishment (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Do7143, Nov. 13, 2008). “A person driving a motor vehicle in a state where normal driving is difficult due to a negative influence” does not refer to all cases where a person driving a motor vehicle while driving a motor vehicle in violation of the provisions of Article 44(1) of the Road Traffic Act, but it is insufficient to the extent that the person is unlikely to drive the motor vehicle normally under the influence of alcohol (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Do1356, May 21, 2009). It is not sufficient to say that the legal provision of this case was finalized as it is in the case of

[) A driver cannot fulfill his/her duty of care required for driving under the Road Traffic Act, or is essential for driving of a motor vehicle, because the driver's ability to exercise his/her duty of care has been deteriorated and determined due to drinking.