The defendant shall be innocent.

1. On August 9, 2013, the Defendant, while under the influence of alcohol with 0.142% of the blood alcohol concentration around 02:35, the Defendant driven an Funst car at approximately five meters from D side in Kimpo-si C to the front of the E cafeteria located in Kimpo-si, Kimpo-si.

2. The Defendant’s defense counsel changed from the investigative agency to the court, in front of a restaurant operated by his year at the time from the time of this trial, the car was cut off without permission, and the car was cut off with his own stunst car to prevent it from driving, and thereafter, the Defendant drank the car together with the annual in the above restaurant. Thus, the Defendant’s defense counsel has changed to the effect that at the time it did not have a drunk driving.

3. The parts inconsistent with each of the statements made by the accused in the investigative agency and the statements made by the accused in this court are found to be partly inconsistent with the witness G at the time;

However, the conviction in a criminal trial should be based on evidence with probative value, which can lead a judge to feel true beyond a reasonable doubt, and if there is no evidence to form such a conviction, it is inevitable to determine the defendant's interest even if there is a doubt that the defendant is guilty.

G It can be recognized that the investigative agency stated to the effect that “at the time a rocketing car was translified and received a car, and the defendant was present at the scene of the defendant’s unloading in the rocketing car.”

However, G did not appear to be close to a passenger car at the time of ‘unclaimed car' in this court, and the defendant was not a witness at the time of ‘unclaimed car', but only a shot on the side of the driver's seat.

At the time, the defendant stated that he did not cause an accident, and that the car was parked without permission in front of the restaurant, but the borrower did not deduct the vehicle.