The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant

A Imprisonment for six months, Defendant B shall be punished by a fine of 5,00,000 won.

(b).

1. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the gist of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts as to the acquittal portion) is as follows: (a) Defendant A driven the instant vehicle under the influence of alcohol 0.194% without a license on March 4, 2013; (b) Defendant B made a false statement that Defendant B driven the instant vehicle; and (c) Defendant B made a false statement to the investigative agency upon Defendant B’s request.

The judgment of the court below that acquitted the Defendants of this part of the facts charged is erroneous.

2. Determination

A. The probative value of evidence is left to a judge’s free judgment, but such judgment must be consistent with logical and empirical rules, and the degree of the formation of conviction to be found guilty in a criminal trial should not be reasonable doubt. However, this does not require that all possible doubts should be excluded, and rejection of evidence that is recognized as having probative value should not exceed the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence.

The term “reasonable doubt” in this context refers to a reasonable doubt as to the probability of facts that cannot be matched with facts based on logical and empirical rules, rather than all questions and correspondences. As such, there is a need to establish the basis for this sexual prejudice that is understood in relation to the fact finding, the doubt based on conceptual or abstract possibility is not included in a reasonable doubt (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 94Do1335, Sept. 13, 1994; 97Do974, Jul. 25, 1997; 2004Do221, Jun. 25, 2004).

The following facts are acknowledged according to the evidence adopted and examined by the court below and the court below.

(1)