The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The gist of the grounds for appeal is that the Defendant’s statement that the automobile was under D (D) condition at the time when it was controlled that the Defendant was diving in the vehicle, that the Defendant’s statement about the reasons for drinking alcohol is not consistent with the Defendant’s statement about the reason for drinking, and that the Defendant’s statement that the vehicle was under drinking at the time when the vehicle was parked, even though he was under drinking at the time when the vehicle was parked, is not persuasive in the Defendant’s statement that the vehicle was traveling together to the parked place.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment, which acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged.

2. Determination

A. On July 28, 2012, the Defendant, while under the influence of alcohol of 0.147% of the blood alcohol concentration on July 28, 2012, driven a Csti-type car from the roads near the 8th Kitsung apartment complex in the Titsung C, which is located in the Jinan-dong, to the roads front of the sick station in the same city.

B. According to the court below's decision, according to the defendant's photograph at the time of detection and the defendant's statement of suspect interrogation protocol against the defendant, the court below acknowledged the fact that the defendant was standing in the above vehicle at the time when the vehicle was located in D, and that there was a false response as a result of the detection of the defendant's false horse detection protocol against the defendant. However, it is not sufficient to recognize that the above evidence and the remaining evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone have driven under the influence of alcohol at the time and place of the charge, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Rather, according to the investigation report 2 (general), the statement of the police statement about D, the statement of suspect's telephone statement and banner photograph, the motor vehicle operated by the defendant at the time prior to the date of the charge, around July 28, 2012, according to the statement of suspect's telephone statement and banner.