The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Compared to misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles, part of the statement and investigation report (as to the statement made by the accused at the scene A) prepared by the accused was not made prior to the preparation of the right to refuse to make statements, and thus, it is inadmissible as evidence illegally collected. 2) Since the part of the statement made by the F in the original trial, the contents of the statement made by the accused, in particular, under particularly reliable circumstances as stipulated in Article 316(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, was not proven, its admissibility is inadmissible.

3) The E’s statement is not consistent with the statement made in an investigative agency and the statement made in the original trial court is not reliable. Accordingly, the remaining evidence submitted by the prosecutor except the evidence set forth in paragraphs (1) through (3) of the above Article cannot be readily concluded that the Defendant was driving under the influence of alcohol level of 0.152%. Thus, the Defendant should be acquitted.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (three million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) Determination of misconception of facts or misapprehension of legal principles as to the assertion that the statement of a suspect constitutes illegally collected evidence due to failure to notify the suspect of the right to refuse to make a statement, if the document or document recording or recording the suspect's statement is prepared in the course of investigation into the investigative agency, it cannot be viewed differently from the suspect interrogation protocol even if it was made in the form of "written statement, written statement, or written statement". Meanwhile, the suspect's right to refuse to make a statement guaranteed by the Criminal Procedure Act is based on the right to refuse to make a statement that is not forced to make a statement unfavorable to himself/herself in criminal cases guaranteed by the Constitution, and if the investigative agency fails to notify the suspect of the right to refuse to make a statement in advance in interrogation of the suspect,