도로교통법위반(음주운전)
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
1. As to the purport of the grounds of appeal of this case, the defendant, while returning a substitute driver after drinking alcohol at the time, was placed on the road in the crepans or crepans of the defendant, and the defendant did not drive under drinking, the court below accepted the facts charged and found the defendant guilty, which erred by misapprehending the relevant legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.
2. The lower court determined that ① at the time of detection, the Defendant was under influence of alcohol in the driver’s seat, and the vehicle trial fluor was turned on, and D, a police officer who was called to the site at the time, stated in the court of the lower court that “the police officer at the time when the Defendant opened a steering door by moving the police officer called out from the front seat to the front fluor, and reported the form to the front fluor at the time.” ② The place where the Defendant’s vehicle was parked is four-lanes of the four-lane road as the Olympic Games, which is the exclusive road for the foregoing road, and the two-lanes of the road are installed on the road boundary. In light of the road conditions and circumstances, it is difficult for the Defendant to obtain a witness to the vehicle that the substitute driver stopped without stopping the vehicle on the above road, ③ the police officer at the time, and the Defendant was placed on the front fluoring to repair the vehicle within the front fluoring construction work.”
‘The statement', and ④ the FF submitted by the defendant.