I would like to say.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant of the facts charged of this case is erroneous as a mistake of facts.

2. On November 27, 2013, the Defendant: (a) driven a vehicle of CNF Soon on a cNF 20th day of November 27, 2013; (b) driven under the influence of alcohol, such as making a traffic accident in which the bus stops on the left side of the moving direction, at the port of the port of the port where the E-cafeteria located in west-gun D was driven from the port of the port of the port to the river of the port of the port of the port; and (c) driving under the influence of alcohol, such as drinking and smelling the Defendant, sniffing the Defendant on the face, setting a red light on the face; and (d) making a non-road and a heavy

Due to reasonable grounds, it was demanded to respond to the measurement of alcohol by inserting the whole in a drinking measuring instrument over about 30 minutes.

Nevertheless, the Defendant was unable to take a drinking test by driving a drinking measuring instrument in his/her hands, and did not comply with a police officer’s request for a drinking test without justifiable grounds.

3. The burden of proof for the criminal facts prosecuted in a criminal trial is the prosecutor, and the conviction of guilt is based on the evidence with probative value that makes the judge feel true beyond a reasonable doubt. Thus, if there is no such evidence, even if there is doubt as to the defendant's guilt, it shall be determined with the benefit of the defendant (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Do2823, Aug. 21, 2001). The lower court acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined, namely, the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence, i.e., ① the defendant’s pelle and damage to further development due to the traffic accident of this case.