2. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the police reported that the Defendant’s vehicle stops on the road at the instant site after receiving a report that the Defendant’s vehicle stops on the same lane, and at the time, the Defendant’s vehicle moved to the limited distance of sight in Seo-gu Daejeon, Seo-gu, Daejeon. The Defendant was stopping at the time of the vehicle’s stop on the offline of Hanom-gu, and the Defendant’s blood alcohol concentration at the time was 0.076%.

Although the defendant was a substitute driver, the defendant argued that he stopped at the above place on the wind, which happens in the middle of dispute, and that the defendant did not drive the vehicle while drinking. However, considering the fact that the above vehicle was in the first line on the three-way road, the defendant was moving to the rear seat of the vehicle even though he was under difficulties to the extent of diving, and the defendant did not provide information about the substitute driver, the defendant can recognize the fact that he driven at least 10 meters distance as stated in the facts charged, so the above argument by the defendant cannot be accepted.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act since it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.