2. It cannot be recognized that only the legal statement of the witness G and all the evidence submitted by the prosecution have been driven by the accused to the EKa Center located in Young-gun D before the end of the day on which the facts charged are written.

Rather, the starting point of the instant case is that the Defendant’s attachment of vision between the president of the Kk Center and H was caused by the delay in repair at the Ek Center, and the Defendant first reported 112, and the police officer dispatched after making a 112 report, conducted a drinking test against the Defendant. However, it is difficult to accept that the Defendant made a 112 report even though he/she was driving alcohol.

In addition, since the defendant's arrival at the Ka Center did not immediately attach He et al., but even after the lapse of time, it cannot be ruled out that the defendant could drink alcohol among them (in addition, that the defendant left the Ka Center around the Ka Center).

Although it was found later, it was not found that it was found later.

However, the defendant's defense is not completely proven.

Defendant is not guilty, and the Defendant was punished for driving under drinking prior to the instant case. In addition, the Defendant was not punished prior to the instant case.

3. As such, the instant facts charged constitute a case where there is no proof of crime, and thus, a judgment of innocence is rendered after Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.