The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Fact-misunderstanding 1) The Defendant is in violation of the Road Traffic Act (dacting driving) and the Defendant has taken and moved his own vehicle at the temporary location as determined by the lower court, but does not directly drive the vehicle.

The driver's surface of the defendant on CCTV submitted by the prosecutor as evidence (hereinafter referred to as "the CCTV of this case") is highly likely not to be taken on the day of this case, and it is difficult to obtain the justification of the defendant related to the substitute driver.

shall not be deemed to exist.

Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged solely with the CCTV images submitted by the Prosecutor.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is erroneous.

2) The Defendant’s damage to property was a defect that the Defendant attempted to attract I in “E sing.”

K has pushed the Defendant, and during this process, the said singing machine fell from the floor, and the Defendant does not intentionally shoulder the things.

The testimony of the witness G of the court below is not reliable because it is not consistent, and there is no objective evidence as to whether the site photograph of this case was actually taken at the time of this case.

Ultimately, although the above evidence alone is insufficient to prove this part of the facts charged, the court below found the defendant guilty, and the court below erred by mistake.

B. The prosecutor of the misunderstanding of legal principles led to a confession of the driving of alcohol in the second investigation conducted on November 28, 2016 by the police from the statement of all the date of the first trial held by the court below, which was conducted on November 28, 2016.

I clearly affected the jury's convictions.

Since the defendant denied the contents of the second suspect interrogation protocol prepared by the police, the above interrogation protocol of the suspect interrogation is inadmissible, and the defendant's confession as above is made by coercion of the police officer in charge of investigation, so it is against Article 309 of the Criminal Procedure Act.