The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Progress of the trial;

A. On January 6, 2016, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of charges against the Defendant and sentenced a fine of KRW 2 million to the Defendant.

Accordingly, the Defendant appealed on the ground of mistake of facts.

B. Prior to remand, the first instance court acknowledged that the Defendant was under diving at the time of driving a car by the evidence adopted by the first instance court, and that the time and headlight of the car were turned on, and that the Defendant was under the influence of put in put in place and put in place (D). The Defendant was under the influence of put in place and put in place ( put in place). The Defendant’s vehicle was parked close to the point of contact with each other; the Defendant’s vehicle parked in front of put in place and the driver was measured at 0.088% of alcohol level in blood; and in light of these facts, the Defendant’s measurement of drinking conducted a alcohol test against the Defendant, on the premise that there is suspicion that the Defendant was not under the influence of driving a car, but the Defendant was under the influence of denying the fact of driving, the first instance court reversed the judgment and acquitted the Defendant on the ground that there was no evidence to acknowledge that the Defendant was under the influence of the vehicle.

(c)

The Supreme Court held that the defendant was driving a vehicle on the ground as above by the trial before remanding.

It is difficult to conclude it.

In light of the foregoing facts charged, the judgment of not guilty on the charge was reversed and remanded to this court on the ground that it exceeded the bounds of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. The accused of the grounds for appeal has no record of driving under drinking;

The defendant requested a substitute driver who was unable to drive a car after drinking with the fee and drinking to drive the car for about 5 meters, and the engineer was driving the car for about 5 meters. However, due to different opinions on the substitute driver's expenses, the substitute driver left the car and left the car. The defendant is in the state.