The defendant is a Korean staff member of the Military Power Corporation.

On March 5, 2014, the Defendant signed the above report, such as directly recording the Defendant’s name “A” on the transportation expenses of the Japanese Police Station that was under the influence of alcohol at the time of drunk driving and the situation report on the driver’s situation of the driver’s working who was discovered to the slopeD belonging to D when he was under the influence of alcohol while driving alcohol at the front of the church located in the U.S. Dongdong-gu, U.S. at around 00:32, the Defendant was driving under the influence of alcohol with 0.142% of alcohol while driving alcohol at the same time.

On March 17, 2014, the Defendant brought an application for formal trial to the above court by asserting that when the Defendant was indicted for the violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving of alcohol), the Defendant made a mistake in the formulation as a mouth clean system at the time of the crackdown on the driving of alcohol, and that the drinking volume on the basis of the mistake in the formulation as a mouth clean system was the same as the regulatory value, the Defendant applied for formal trial.

On June 24, 2014, when the above court rendered a fine of three million won in the above court, the Defendant appealed, and on June 3, 2015, the appellate court rendered a judgment of not guilty on the ground that there was no proof of the facts charged on the ground that the result of the test of drinking conducted by the Defendant’s blood gathering conducted by the appellate court was more trust than that of the measurement of drinking according to the breath measurement.

However, on March 24, 2016, the Supreme Court, which rendered a final appeal on March 24, 2016, did not exclude the possibility that artificial manipulation, etc. was involved, such as the result of blood gathering alcohol conducted by the defendant, cannot be confirmed whether the blood of the defendant is blood of the defendant, and the report on the result of drinking driving control prepared by the police officer in charge

On July 5, 2016, when the appeal by the defendant was reversed on the ground that there was no reason to view it, and the defendant was dismissed, the defendant again filed a false complaint with the Supreme Court to the effect that police officers D et al. prepared a false circumstantial report to the effect that it was not admissible as evidence in the situation report of the driver at the time when the defendant filed a new appeal with the Supreme Court.