도로교통법위반(음주운전)등
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
1. Although the summary of the grounds for appeal shows that the defendants' statements are inconsistent with the objective data and fall short of credibility, the court below rejected the report on detection of the driver-in-law driver and the circumstantial statement of the driver-in-fact driver, which are the evidence consistent with the facts charged, based on the defendants' statements, and acquitted the defendants, the court below erred by violating the rules of evidence or by misunderstanding facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment
2. Determination
A. A. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case (1) Defendant A (A) driven a G Poter vehicle at the section of about 5 km from the direction of “F” located in the same Ri from the front to the front of “F” on September 18, 2011 under the influence of alcohol at around 0.179% of the blood alcohol concentration on September 22, 201.
(B) Defendant A: (a) from the end of September 201 to the early November 201 of the same year, Defendant B, who was aware of the usual location to conceal the facts of driving under the influence of alcohol as above, requested Defendant B to make a statement at an investigative agency as if he/she driven the cargo on September 18, 201, and requested Defendant B to make a statement at the investigative agency on November 11, 201, and January 26, 201; (b) at the transportation survey division office of the common police station located in the Mine-gu Office located in the photobiopia at the time of Tong-young on September 22, 201 to the first place of the same year; and (c) Defendant B, the investigator in charge, around September 22, 2011, Defendant B, from September 22, 201 to the “E” road located in front of the “F” in the same paragraph; and (d) Defendant B, from September 28, 2012>
3. On December 19, 19, the Ministry of Education, the Head Office of the Changwon District Prosecutors' Office, 304, located in the 67th west-ro, Dong-si, Dong-si, and made a statement to the same purport.
As a result, Defendant A instigated Defendant B to escape a person who committed a crime corresponding to a fine or heavier punishment.
(2) Defendant B is the defendant B from the defendant A to the above.