The defendant shall be innocent.

1. The summary of the facts charged is that the Defendant, as a driver of CBS sports cargo vehicle, driven a vehicle owned by the Defendant by driving approximately 10 meters of the volume of 10 meters in the manner of driving the vehicle under the influence of at least 0.052% of blood alcohol level around the south of the wife population at Chicago-si on September 6, 2012, under the influence of at least 0.052% of blood alcohol level in front of the Young-gu fishery located in Young-gu, Youngdong Fishery.

2. The summary of the defendant's and defense counsel's defense counsel's defense counsel's defense counsel's defense counsel did not drive a vehicle at the time of the instant case, and the reporter's defense counsel's defense counsel's defense counsel's defense counsel's defense counsel'

3. In a judgment of conviction in a criminal trial, the conviction ought to be based on evidence of probative value, which leads to a judge to have the conviction that the facts charged are true beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore, if there is no such evidence, the doubt of guilt against the defendant is doubtful even if there is no such evidence.

Even if there is no choice but to judge the interests of the defendant.

(3) In light of the above legal principles, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the admissibility of a statement on the part of a person making the original statement, and by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence, and by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence, and by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the admissibility of a statement on the part of a person making the original statement, and thereby exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence, and thereby exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence. In so doing, the court below erred by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence, as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.