The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is only the fact that the defendant has a substitute driver drive the vehicle by leaving the vehicle of the defendant, and the defendant has not driven the vehicle directly in drinking condition as determined by the court below.

2. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court, the Defendant: (a) was unable to consistently see the vehicle from around 20:30 to 23:00 on September 13, 2012, with the staff of the front line and cooperative company near the police box; and (b) the Defendant parked the vehicle near the police box; (c) the foregoing vehicle resulted in four lanes in front of the front line while moving from the front line to the front line of the Defendant’s residence; (d) at the time of leaving the vehicle from the front line to the front line of the 1054 private teaching institute in the front line of the front line of the front line; and (e) the Defendant’s vehicle was at the time of leaving the vehicle from the front line to the front line of the police box; (e) the Defendant’s vehicle was at the time of leaving the vehicle from the front line to the front line of the police box; and (e) the Defendant was at the time of leaving the vehicle from the front line to the front line of the police station.