A. Defendant A 1) Violation of the Road Traffic Act (Drivinging on April 23, 2013), Defendant A, while under the influence of alcohol on April 23, 2013, at around 03:23:0, Defendant A, from the front day of the head office in which it is impossible to identify the trade name in the Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Daejeon to the front day of the Dong-gu, Daejeon to the front day of the street street in the Dong-gu, Daejeon (hereinafter “instant vehicle”).

(2) The Defendant A driven the instant vehicle to the Prosecutor E at the Prosecutor’s Office No. 732 around May 20, 2013, when it was controlled due to the fact that he driven the instant vehicle as above, and the person who driven the instant vehicle to Defendant B was not Defendant A but Defendant B, upon request by the Prosecutor’s Office No. 732 of Daejeon District Prosecutor’s Office, the person who driven the instant vehicle to the Prosecutor E who was investigating the instant case was not Defendant A but Defendant B.

B. Although Defendant B knew of the fact that Defendant A committed a crime corresponding to a fine or heavier punishment due to drunk driving, Defendant B, at the Prosecutor’s Office No. 732 of Daejeon District Prosecutors’ Office around May 20, 2013, Defendant B, who was investigating the said case, made a false statement to Defendant B, not Defendant A, but Defendant B.

2. The gist of the Defendants’ assertion is that Defendant B actually driven the instant vehicle and Defendant A did not drive the instant vehicle.

3. According to the records, around 03:23, Apr. 23, 2013, Defendant A was on board the instant vehicle in the Eastwest-gu, Daejeon under the influence of alcohol level of 0.143%; at the time, the instant vehicle was under the suspension on the first line of the Eastwest-gu roadway, and even after the direct dust signal was entered, Defendant A was under the influence of the instant vehicle. At the time, Defendant A was divingd on the instant vehicle.