The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the Defendant did not drive under the influence of alcohol, and only drinking was done after driving.

In particular, the lower court cited the police officer’s testimony of F on the Defendant’s wife M as the grounds of criminal facts, but this part is inadmissible as a full-time statement.

2. Article 316(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that “When a statement made by a person other than the defendant at a preparatory hearing or during trial contains a statement made by another person other than the defendant, such statement may not be made due to death, illness, foreign residence, unknown whereabouts, or any other similar cause, and it may be admitted as evidence only when it is proved that the statement was made under particularly reliable circumstances.”

According to the records of this case, F testified about the statement made at M in the court of original instance, which constitutes "the content of the statement made by a person other than the defendant on the trial date of a person other than the defendant" under Article 316 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and thus, it shall be admissible to prove that "the original statement is unable to make a statement due to death, illness, overseas residence, unknown whereabouts, and other similar causes, and that the statement was made in a particularly reliable state," and since M testified at the court of original instance, it does not constitute the case where the original statement is unable to make a statement.

Therefore, as the defendant pointed out, the above testimony part of F is inadmissible.

However, even if the F’s testimony was excluded, considering the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, it is sufficient to recognize the fact that the Defendant was a drunk driver.

On the source of drinking after parking a motor vehicle, the Defendant first, on the vehicle to play the following day.