The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. In light of the statement of H that the Defendant did not drink the alcohol, the Defendant did not drive the alcohol, and the statement of F that the Defendant drank the alcohol at home, etc. The evidence submitted by the Prosecutor is merely a side to the extent that the Defendant would have driven the alcohol at the time.

2. In full view of the following circumstances recognized by the court below based on the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, the defendant can sufficiently be found to have driven a car under the influence of alcohol level of 0.085% on the date and time stated in the facts charged. The degree of formation of a conviction to be found guilty in the criminal trial should not be a reasonable doubt, but it does not demand that all possible doubts be excluded. In light of the following circumstances, the defendant's suspicion about the possibility of drinking alcohol in his house is not included in a reasonable doubt.

① Upon receiving an accident report, the Defendant reversed the statement to the police officer that “at the time of drinking alcohol, a substitute engineer has been driving on his house to drink, but did not have any fact that other vehicles and accidents had occurred.” However, the Defendant did not assert that the police officer was drinking alcohol at the house at the time, and there was no suspicion of drinking alcohol or that the Defendant was drinking alcohol at all.

② The Defendant began to undergo an investigation at an investigative agency for a week and did not drive a drinking, and began to assert that he was drinking at home, and that he was drinking at home, and the reason why the police officer did not show that he was drinking at home and did not drink at home was interested by a police officer’s demand for the measurement of alcohol, but the Defendant did not drink.