2. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, in particular D, the statement made at the investigation agency and the court of original judgment, etc., ① D, a towing engineer, received a report from a driving school of the Oralty Driving on July 27, 2013 that the Defendant stopped at the same one-lane of the two-lane in front of the station of the Oralty Driving Driving Driving School, on the surface of the U.S., and sent to the above site. ② D, which arrived at the site, was observed by the Defendant at the driving seat of the said vehicle; ② D, which was divided into the communication with the Defendant and the accident processing issues, was found to have not been a person other than the Defendant; ③ A’s blood alcohol alcohol concentration was measured as 0.065% of the Defendant’s blood alcohol concentration was measured at the time when the Defendant’s driver’s license was suspended, and the Defendant’s assertion that it was insufficient to recognize the Defendant’s blood alcohol level as stated in the facts charged.

3. If so, the defendant's appeal is without merit, and it is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.