The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant is innocent. The summary of this judgment shall be notified publicly.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal has been in front of the D apartment management office, which is a multi-functional driver after drinking alcohol.

Since a substitute driver has done drinking after getting out, it is not the fact that he has driven only in the vehicle after hearing the horn and making a warning.

The judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous.

2. Determination

A. On April 13, 2012, the Defendant: (a) around 00:50 on April 13, 2012, the Defendant driven CSM5 car from the street in front of the Ggudong-gu D apartment management office to the front of the D apartment management office with approximately two meters of alcohol level 0.150 percent alcohol level.

B. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged by comprehensively taking account of each of the evidence in its judgment.

C. According to the evidence and records duly adopted and examined by the court below, the following facts may be acknowledged according to the facts found in the facts. ① When a cab gets into the front of the above apartment management office at around 00:50 on April 13, 2012, a vehicle of the defendant was obstructed by entering the front of the management office, and the vehicle was obstructed by entering the front of the management office. ② After that, the defendant was also coming from the vehicle, and he was also dissatisfied with E-si, and reported a drunk driving to the police. ③ At the time of the police station, E reported a drunk driving to the police station. ③ At the time, E made a statement to the same effect (the first written statement, stating that the Defendant was driving in the front and rear of the vehicle, but the first written statement, and that there was a difference in the part that the Defendant was driving in the lower court.

(4) As a result of the verification of black boxes installed in E-si, the Defendant’s vehicle was in a state of stop with the U.S. turn on, and the Defendant’s vehicle was not in a state of moving off or moving back. (2) A public prosecution was instituted in a judgment trial.