The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal did not drive the defendant under the influence of alcohol.

Nevertheless, the court below convicted the defendant, which is erroneous in the misunderstanding of facts.

2. The court below made a statement to the effect that "At the time when this witness D was under police investigation by the evidence duly adopted and investigated, the defendant walked the vehicle at the time (referring to the instant rocketing vehicle) and parked the vehicle in its original condition after moving the vehicle again by the residents in the surrounding area due to the shocking of the vehicle in the future." The driver of the driver's license register shows the photograph of the vehicle (see, e.g., evidence records 36 pages)", while attending the court of the court below and stating that "at the time, the defendant was parked in the original state while driving a rocketing vehicle, and then parked the vehicle at the time (see, e.g., the trial record 32 pages)", and the defendant stated that "at the time of this case, the defendant had consistently driven the vehicle at the time, but it is difficult to find that the defendant had the front wheeled part of the vehicle that the police officer had consistently driven the vehicle at the time of this case, and the defendant had a right to ask the front part of the vehicle.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion cannot be accepted.

3. Conclusion.