On April 25, 2013, around 23:55, the Defendant driven a car with approximately 1mm string while under the influence of alcohol content of 0.199% at the front of the restaurant “Tro 692” located in Goyang-dong 1195, Goyang-dong, Mangsan-dong.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of witness D;

1. Partial statement of witness E in the fifth trial records;

1. A written statement;

1. The defendant and the defense counsel asserts that the judgment of the defendant and the defense counsel on the protruding driver report, the report on protruding driver's status report, the defendant and the defense counsel have been seated on the driver's seat to avoid drilling while waiting the substitute engineer, and they did not drive the vehicle.

However, there is evidence directly corresponding to the defendant's driving, D's legal statement and F's statement are sufficient credibility in light of the fact that D has observed the situation at the time of the collapse, and there is no special interest with the defendant's side, F, E, and the above D consistently stated that the vehicle on board the defendant was faced with E's own vehicle which was parked later and parked later, and the F's statement prepared and submitted to the investigation agency and submitted by F is sufficiently reliable.

F makes an unclear statement as to whether the Defendant was present at this court to the effect that the Defendant was unable to see the shocking or shocking of the vehicle, even though he was suffering from the running of the vehicle on the vehicle by changing his attitude.

However, this F's statement in the court of law is inconsistent with the statement in G, which is the defendant's defense or the defendant's seat, that it was not caused by the starting of the vehicle itself, and the above testimony was made after the agreement was reached on the assault case with the defendant that was at the time.