도로교통법위반(음주운전)
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
1. Although the defendant was unable to drive a vehicle under the influence of alcohol, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty only with a documentary evidence without accurate evidence is erroneous in the misapprehension of the judgment which affected the conclusion of the judgment.
2. Determination
A. The conviction of a judge is not necessarily required to be formed by direct evidence, but is formed by indirect evidence unless it violates the empirical and logical rules, and indirect evidence should not be individually and separately assessed, and it should be evaluated in a comprehensive manner with mutual relation to each other in all respects, and it must undergo an equitable and contradictory argument (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Do6179, Oct. 25, 2007).
B. In full view of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, i.e., the following circumstances acknowledged by the court below, i.e., ① the defendant was found to have been exposed by the police officer who was sent to the police after being reported by the defendant that he was sitting in the driver's seat in DM vehicle owned by the defendant, which was stopped on the two-lanes at the time of the instant case (Evidence No. 8-10 pages), and ② the defendant first appeared to have stopped on the two-lane road in which the defendant's Masck vehicle was parked in brac, etc., and the defendant was standing on the boom, etc., and the defendant was able to make a report on the same day with the driver's seat, and the defendant stated to the effect that "no person seems to be a driver or an acting driver" was found to have been under the influence of alcohol on the day of the instant case (Evidence No. 27 pages).