A. Defendants 1) not Defendant A but Defendant B driven a motor vehicle.

Defendant

B It is not to avoid drinking control, but to avoid drinking control.

R, FJ, L, L, L, L, L, L, L, L, L, L, L, L, L, L, L, L, L, L, L, L, L

After that, Defendant A, who was seated at the steering place, was placed in the driver’s seat by changing his position with Defendant B in order to make it easy for us to do so, and was controlled by the police who has driven away from that time.

2) The sentencing of the lower court’s improper sentencing (Defendant A: one year of imprisonment, and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The lower court’s sentencing is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence examined by the court below as to the Defendants’ assertion of mistake, the facts that Defendant A driven a drinking alcohol, but the Defendant A driven by Defendant B to the investigation agency but was seated with Defendant A by changing the position of Defendant B.

Any fact that has made a false statement may be sufficiently recognized.

1) On the day of the instant case, the vehicles on which the Defendants boarded were under the influence of alcohol at the time of left turn came to the S tri-distance where the alcohol control is being carried out, and later came to go back to the room where the normal U.S. internship was gone through and the U.S. was going to go later.

2) From the above three-distances, if the Defendants’ vehicles continue to stand directly, the length to the Defendant’s residence is going to the Defendant’s place of residence. In the case of left-hand turn, the restaurant where the Defendants had been engaged in “P” is located.

Defendants were making a U.S. internship in order to go back from RF L, and even if Defendant A’s office stands, the Defendants were to go straight from the above three-distance, so the Defendants were unable to control drinking because there is no reason to turn to the left.

However, Defendant A sent Defendant B a letter of “P cafeteria” at around 20:02 on the day of the instant case (the 121 page of the investigation record), and Defendant A.