The defendant shall be innocent.

2. On October 16, 2017, the Defendant: (a) around 16:35, the Defendant driven a DNA car under the influence of alcohol with a blood alcohol concentration of at least 0.05% on the front of C in Seowon-gu, Seowon-si, Seowon-si.

3. Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and examined by the prosecutor, the evidence alone presented by the prosecutor cannot be deemed as proven without reasonable doubt that the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol above 0.05% at the time of driving.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty is erroneous in the misunderstanding of facts, and the defendant's assertion pointing this out is justified.

There are reports of E, the wife, and statements made by the police as direct evidence of the fact that the defendant was driving under influence of alcohol.

E reported at around 16:35 on October 16, 2017, on the day of the instant case, at around 112, 2017, to the effect that “I am drinking. I am moving to Friju basin.” On around 17:02, E reported at around 112 that “I am drunk driving and starting from the scambling, I am going to the scam room after gas in the H station near the Hoju G prior to the Cho Chang-dong. I am in writing. I am to the settlement details of H card prior to the Cho Jong-dong.” On around 00:24, E reported to 112 that “I am scam at the entrance of the apartment and the husband.”

E was investigated by the police on the day of the instant case, and stated, “The Defendant became aware that he would drive a vehicle in the state of drinking at 16:32 minutes in the speed of alcohol and drink and drive it.” The Defendant stated, “I have been aware that he would drink in the entrance and have driven it. So I have done so. I have been aware that he would drive it while drinking.”

(No. 18) However, in full view of the following circumstances, E’s content.