The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. At the time of erroneous determination of facts, the Defendant was in the state of drinking, so that he was not a substitute driver, and caused him to drive a vehicle. A substitute driver discovered a police officer who controls drinking and abandoned the vehicle while driving the vehicle, and the Defendant did not drive the vehicle.

Nevertheless, the court below found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case. The court below erred by misunderstanding facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (two years of imprisonment with labor for a term of one year suspension, two hundred hours of community service, and forty hours of compliance driving instruction) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. On October 31, 2013, the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined at the court below and the court below's decision of the case, namely, slope E: (a) there was no evidence supporting that the above substitute driver was driving a vehicle when committing the crime of this case; and (b) discovered the above vehicle to "Korean Won Won", and conducted drinking control by putting the defendant under the influence of drinking; (c) the defendant was driving a substitute driver while driving the vehicle, and he was aware of the fact that he was aware of the fact that he was driving of the defendant; (d) there was no evidence proving that the above substitute driver was driving a vehicle when the crime of this case was committed; and (e) there was no evidence proving that the above substitute driver was driving the above substitute driver; and (e) the defendant was driving a vehicle again at the police station's first time, but he did not have a driver's memory in the above vehicle; and (e) there was no evidence that the defendant again made a witness inspection at the police court's first time, but he did not have a driver.