The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles are the only driving of a motor vehicle in the state of drinking, and the defendant did not drive the motor vehicle, so the defendant does not constitute a crime of refusing to measure drinking.

Therefore, the court below which found the defendant guilty has erred by misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (fine 5 million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In light of the difference between the first instance court and the appellate court’s method of evaluating the credibility of a statement made by a witness of the first instance court in light of the contents of the first instance court’s judgment and the evidence duly examined by the first instance court, or in exceptional cases where it is deemed that maintaining the first instance court’s judgment on the credibility of a statement made by a witness of the first instance court is considerably unreasonable in full view of the results of the first instance court’s examination and the results of additional evidence examination conducted by the time of closing argument, the appellate court should not reverse without permission the first instance court’s judgment on the sole ground that the first instance court’s judgment on the credibility of a statement made by a witness of the first instance differs from the appellate court’s judgment (Supreme Court Decision 2011Do5313, Jun. 14, 2012). The lower court found the witness of the first instance to have found the first instance court guilty of the facts charged after the witness’s testimony made by a witness of the first instance court.

In light of the above legal principles, a thorough examination of the evidence of this case is consistent with the judgment of the court below as to the credibility of H’s above statement. The judgment of the court below was just, and there was no specific rupture between the defendant’s vehicle and G’s vehicle.