2. The defendant argued the same purport in the court below. The court below rejected the defendant's assertion on the ground that the location where the defendant was exposed is the one-way intersection with the two-lanes of two and three-lanes, and the defendant was divingd at the driver's seat at the time, and the defendant was parked in the defendant's vehicle at the location where the defendant was exposed, but it is inappropriate to see that he was parked in the vehicle at the location where there is a high risk of traffic accident by the vehicle running within the intersection, E was parked in the police crossing and parked in the middle of the crosswalk. In full view of the above, the court below rejected the defendant's assertion on the ground that it could be recognized that the defendant was driving a drinking motor vehicle.

In addition, the following circumstances acknowledged by the court below, which are acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, that is, the defendant used the facts of driving on the day when the first detection was made, and the defendant did not mention the fact of driving on the day when the first detection was made, and the police started to assert that the situation was changed at the time of the discovery site along with E, and the police started to change the situation at the time of the discovery site. The police called that E was installed at the time of the discovery, and the location where the defendant was discovered was discovered were different, and the police again tried again, and the defendant tried again, and the defendant tried to drive from the place where E was newly installed, but the court below determined that the defendant driven from the place where the defendant was