The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the Defendant, who was in custody in the vehicle parked on the day of the instant appeal, was driving under the influence of alcohol on the vehicle, by taking out the two parts which were parked on the day of the instant appeal, and locked on the vehicle.
Nevertheless, the court below found guilty of the facts charged in this case without objective evidence, and the court below erred by misunderstanding the facts and thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
2. The judgment of the court below also asserted the same purport as the grounds for appeal, and the court below rejected the Defendant’s assertion and found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case, considering detailed circumstances as stated in its reasoning.
On October 17, 2018, when the court below duly adopted and examined the following circumstances, the defendant, as a result of the alcohol measurement by a drinking measuring instrument around 07:47 on October 17, 2018, the blood alcohol concentration level was 0.102% and collected at a L hospital actively, and the blood alcohol concentration level was 0.174% as a result of the blood appraisal. The defendant, at the police station's request for a vehicle after 05:00 days from the day of the crime in this case, contacted the front left side of the driver's vehicle, but at the time of the vehicle's purchase of the vehicle, the two alcohol level was locked at the time of the vehicle's death. However, the defendant argued that the defendant did not respond to the request of the police officer for a breath test, but did not respond to the request of the police officer for a breath test and presented the breath test result at the time of breath test.