A. A person who was driving a misunderstanding of facts by the defendant and thereafter in the future of the taxi platform is not the defendant but the defendant was on board the senior police officer at the time.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below that found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous in misconception of facts.

B. The sentence of imprisonment (six months of imprisonment) imposed by the court below on the defendant is too unreasonable.

2. The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below regarding the assertion of mistake of facts: (i) the defendant stated that he was driving his vehicle on the taxi platform, and that he was driving the vehicle of the defendant; (ii) the defendant stated that he was not able to memory by driving the vehicle at the drinking house; (iii) the defendant stated that he was not able to put put to place place place lots of alcohol at the time, and that he was not able to drive the vehicle (the investigative record 27,28 pages); and (iv) the defendant, who was not on his behalf, was unable to think that he was in charge of driving the vehicle first at the bar because he was difficult to believe that he was unable to make the defendant's statement because he was unable to know that the defendant was in charge of driving the vehicle at the bar platform of the defendant; (iv) the witness E and G parked the vehicle at the entrance of the defendant's taxi platform; and (iv) the defendant stated that he was not waiting to put the witness at the entrance of the above defendant's taxi platform.