The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, it is recognized that the defendant was drunk.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged of this case is erroneous.

2. Determination

A. The lower court determined that the Defendant was at the time of discovery of the Defendant’s vehicle at the time of driving on the road, and there was doubt that the Defendant was under drinking on the part of the Defendant, considering that the Defendant was able to sit at the driver’s seat while driving on the dong and headlights, but the Defendant was under drinking on the part of the driver’s seat at the station where the hand-on of the hand-on chill, and that the Defendant was under drinking on the part of the Defendant, and the Defendant stated that the Defendant was under drinking on the front left the house without any other evidence of the facts charged, and that the Defendant was under suspicion that the Defendant was under driving on the front of rice at the time of driving on March 6, 2014, since it was difficult for the Defendant to view that he was under the influence of the Defendant’s vehicle at the time of moving on the front left the house at the time of loading the apartment house at the time of his domicile, it was difficult for the Defendant to view that there was no possibility that the Defendant had been under driving on the road at the same time as the time of driving.

B. The judgment of the court below is examined.