The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (the factual error) asserted that the Defendant used the time zone of the vehicle at the time of the instant case, carried a substitute engineer, did not drive the vehicle, and that the time of the ordinary vehicle was not well walked, and that the Defendant was placed at the time in advance to return the substitute engineer if he did not walk even though he was a substitute engineer. However, in full view of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, including the statement at the police station, the instant facts charged can be sufficiently recognized, and the Defendant’s assertion that the substitute engineer was not a substitute engineer is difficult to believe.

Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant not guilty of the facts charged of this case, which erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. In light of the determination of the grounds for appeal, the burden of proof of the facts charged in a criminal trial is to be borne by the prosecutor. The conviction is to be based on the evidence of probative value, which makes the judge feel true to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt as to the facts charged. Therefore, if there is no such evidence, the suspicion of guilt is against the defendant even if there is no such evidence.

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

(See Supreme Court Decision 2006Do735 Decided April 27, 2006, etc.). The lower court comprehensively adopted and examined the following circumstances that can be recognized by comprehensively taking account of the evidence, namely, ① the Defendant was subject to drinking control from a police officer who was dispatched to the police station after receiving a report in a state where he was going to the hand of the driver’s seat in a vehicle in the vicinity of a parking lot where drinking alcohol is drunk at the main point, ② the vehicle at the time of drinking control was in a state where the Defendant was traveling, but the vehicle was parked at the vehicle at the time of driving, ③ The vehicle was parked at the bar, ③ the Defendant’s cell phone call from the main point to the time when the Defendant was faced with drinking control.