The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that a proxy driver drives a cargo vehicle owned by the defendant, but the defendant does not drive the cargo vehicle.

2. According to CCTV images (Evidence List Nos. 39) recorded at the scene of the instant crime, the fact that the Fpoter freight car owned by the Defendant was stopped in front of the E convenience store located in Jinju-si, on October 15, 2018, around 19:46:10 on October 15, 2018, and around 19:46:16 on which approximately 6 seconds passed, the Defendant opened a door of the said freight car and borrowed it.

The defendant asserts that he had been engaged in the above convenience point through the substitute driving, and that the head door of the above cargo vehicle was out of the driver's seat. However, the CCTV images can only confirm the situation that the defendant gets out of the above cargo vehicle, but there is no way to get out of the cargo vehicle by others.

On the other hand, the above employees of the convenience store reported 112 as they are suspected of drinking, such as snow snow snowing in the state of drinking, etc., and the Defendant's drinking level confirmed as a result of the measurement of drinking by the police officer called out was 0.136% of blood alcohol concentration.

In light of the above circumstances, the judgment of the court below which convicted the Defendant of the facts charged of this case is just, and there is no error of misconception of facts alleged by the Defendant.

3. The defendant's appeal is without merit and thus dismissed pursuant to Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.