The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

Provided, That the above punishment shall be imposed for two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

At the time of the instant case, the Defendant driven Oral Ba while under the influence of alcohol.

The judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant.

Judgment

The summary of the facts charged in this case was issued by the Seoul Western District Court on August 16, 2007 a summary order of KRW 1.5 million for the crime of violating the Road Traffic Act, and on July 10, 2009, a summary order of KRW 1 million was issued by the same court as the same crime.

On June 4, 2018, at around 22:08, the Defendant driven a motorcycle of CA110 under the influence of alcohol concentration of 0.235% at a section of about 150 meters from the front of the Seodaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (C) to the front of Down-do.

In full view of the following circumstances, the lower court rendered a judgment that acquitted the Defendant on the ground that it is difficult to deem that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone alone was insufficient to prove that the Defendant driven a motorcycle at the time of the instant case to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt.

(1) According to the Statement of the Control of Drinking Vehicle Operation, the Defendant, “at the time,” stated that “at the time, the Defendant continued to have driven away from urbane because gue was not paid wages.” The Defendant, while showing the CCTV images that the Defendant was seated in the laying to rest in the urbbed and carried out whether to drive under the influence of drinking, stated that he was aware of the fact of driving under the influence of drinking.”

At the time, the witness F, who written the above explanatory note, stated in this court that “I sees CCTV as at the time, but we may not know whether the Defendant had been leading to the match as to whether he had been infected with the Otoba,” and stated that “I see that I am the CCTV image to the Defendant, I am in accordance with what I am. I am. I am. I am. I am. I am. I am. I am. I am. I am.. am..

(2) A witness G who was dispatched to the scene shall be referred to in this Court and "video itself".