Although the Defendant violated Article 44(1) of the Road Traffic Act two or more times, on July 8, 2014, at around 05:00, the Defendant driven CWz car under the influence of alcohol at approximately 0.173% of alcohol alcohol level at approximately 300 meters from the vicinity of the 207 “MNNE Dollin” to the entrance of the Gu-ro 212-ro 45 Denmark parking lot.

2. The Defendant asserts to the effect that, from the investigative agency to the court, pro-Japanese D drives the Defendant’s vehicle instead of driving the Defendant on the day of the instant case.

In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly examined by this court, i.e., ① A witness E, at an investigative agency, made a statement to the effect that the Defendant was able to get off the vehicle on the day of the instant case, but this court stated to the effect that the Defendant was driving on the police in a state of interest after paying time expenses to the Defendant on the day of the instant case, but in fact, the Defendant was driving

A statement is made to the effect that the Defendant was unable to see the seat of the vehicle, and ② the Defendant reported the Defendant to the police station with the bath, and ② the Defendant was unable to drive the vehicle, even if the police station arrives at the site after the Defendant reported the Defendant’s walk to the police station. The Defendant’s vehicle parked at the entrance of the parking lot at the time of the first Defendant and the trial expenses reported the vehicle to the guard room, and the Defendant reported the vehicle to the seat of the vehicle, and the vehicle was parked after the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol control, and the vehicle was parked.