The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal did not drive the Defendant.

2. In full view of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court, the Defendant, after parking a substitute engineer, was driving the vehicle on his own.

The decision is judged.

Therefore, we cannot accept the defendant's assertion of mistake of the above facts.

(1) The Defendant was found to have been infected with a driver’s seat, and was found to have been in the state of “D”, which is the main fluority.

② If the Defendant’s assertion is true, an acting engineer must set up a vehicle at the center of the road and leave it as it is, and then the Defendant sits at the driver’s seat (if there was no dispute but a acting engineer set up and set up a vehicle at the center of the road). Accordingly, an acting engineer was paid a driving fee from the Defendant to the center of the road.

If so, there was a dispute between the representative engineer and the defendant.

It is difficult to see it.

In addition, it is difficult to understand that the proxy engineer has set up the vehicle at the center of the road, and if the defendant gets on the driver's seat and locked, he is in the state of "D".

3. The defendant's appeal is without merit. Thus, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.