The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The defendant's vehicle of mistake of facts is driving by an acting driver, and there is no fact that the defendant has directly driven.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (fine 5 million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court regarding the assertion of mistake of facts, the Defendant may fully recognize the facts of driving a direct driving under the influence of alcohol as stated in the lower judgment.

1) The Defendant asserts that the driver who tried to be represented by a proxy driver was unfolded by the cell phone and the driver who was under the control of the cell phone called a proxy driver, and that the driver was under the control of the driver, and that he was under the control of the driver, and that the driver was under the control of the driver, and that there was no cash payment for the fee while the driver was traveling while driving the vehicle on his behalf. The above argument by the Defendant is against the sound common sense, social norms, and the empirical rule, as it is considerably against the road, and it does not fit the objective evidence as seen below, and it is also inconsistent with the written statement and the written statement that the Defendant submitted following the measurement of drinking, “I am under severe dispute with the spouse while she was under the influence of his spouse, and I am under the influence of the driver’s vehicle immediately before the drinking Regulation.”

Even based on CCTV images taken at a drinking control site, there seems to be no person who left the above vehicle from the time immediately after the defendant's vehicle stops until the police officer arrives.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's argument is without merit.

B. There is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the judgment of the first instance court on the assertion of unfair sentencing, and the sentencing of the first instance court is discretionary.