2. In light of the reasoning of the judgment below, the defendant argued to the same effect, and the court below convicted him of the charges by deeming that he driven a fexton vehicle under the influence of alcohol as stated in the facts charged. In addition to the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, it is insufficient to view that G had made a false statement at the police. Rather, the G police statement is deemed to be reliable when considering the background leading the defendant to the police, the surrounding circumstances at the time, and CCTV image, and the fact that the vehicle was parked at the entrance of the D parking lot, and that the vehicle was not found to be a galton vehicle around the 7th day of Sep. 25, 2015 (see, e.g., the above g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Do8270, Sept. 25, 2015).