Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty is erroneous in the misconception of facts.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the following circumstances that can be recognized by the court below, it can be sufficiently recognized that the defendant has driven a drinking alcohol as stated in the facts constituting the crime in the judgment below.

① The police officer E and D testified in the court of the court below that “the defendant is under the influence of alcohol, and he sent a warning that he would not drive the motor vehicle. Nevertheless, the defendant's vehicle was 1m in a state of vision, and that he immediately prevented the defendant from driving the motor vehicle and let the defendant get off the motor vehicle.” The above witness's statement is very specific and persuasive as to the background of the witness's drinking operation, the contents of the witness, the measures taken after the witness's drinking, and the behavior and attitude of the defendant, and there is no contradiction in light of consistent and objective evidence or experience from the investigation stage to the court.”

② Meanwhile, considering the photograph related to drunk driving (Evidence Pp.18-21), the Defendant’s vehicle at the time, when the vehicle of the Defendant turns on, may have invaded the front wheels with the delivery part. However, even if the vehicle of the Defendant at the time was placed a simplifieder, as the Defendant asserted by the Defendant, even if the vehicle of the Defendant was parked on the front of his seat at the time, the space would be sufficient if the vehicle of the Defendant’s vehicle was parked on the face of India. However, even if the vehicle of the Defendant’s vehicle can be parked on the face of India depending on parking circumstances, it would be very natural sick as seen from the photograph.

This is.