In other words, the defendant returned home through a proxy driving at the time of the case, and he was seated in the back seat of the car (the glass door, which is cut, is not visible to the black video).

Since the parking of a vehicle after the vehicle was parked, the defendant was required to speak in relation to the usual parking problem, so that the vehicle was set up by F with the vehicle of F, and the F was suspected of drinking driving on the wind reported to the police to consider the defendant as the defendant.

2. It is natural that the recognition of conviction in a judgment-based criminal trial should be based on evidence that leads a judge to such a degree that it is not likely to have a reasonable doubt.

However, in full view of the following circumstances admitted by the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below, the suspicion that a person driving (parking) at the time of the case is a substitute driver, and the defendant was on the rear seat of the vehicle cannot be considered as a reasonable doubt, and contrary to the defendant's assertion, the defendant was driving the vehicle at the time and place specified in the facts charged.

① At the time of the instant case, the Defendant’s vehicle is parked by a male in the black box image, both sides of which are left by both sides, and the chief of the lighting is confirmed to have never been loaded.

② While the vehicle of the Defendant was parked in the above black image (at the time, time was around 03:53) the Defendant’s vehicle was left around the Defendant’s vehicle or the alley, there was no room to find that there was a seat around the Defendant’s vehicle, and the Defendant’s assertion that the borrower, as the borrower, was sitting in the rear seat until the parking is completed in the narrow parking space.

(3) Vehicles of defendants are parked in the same building during their parking.