The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The gist of the grounds for appeal is 0.104% of the defendant's blood alcohol concentration, and the defendant found the vehicle parked in the front line with D (D) while leaving the start of the vehicle in this case and leaving D (D). Considering the fact that the defendant driven the vehicle under the influence of alcohol level of not less than 0.05% in blood, the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles and misapprehension of legal principles.

2. Evidence that there is a criminal fact in the judgment criminal procedure shall be presented by the public prosecutor, and the same shall apply to the case where the change of the defendant is unreasonable and it is false;

Even if there is no evidence to establish such a degree of conviction, it is inevitable to determine the interest of the Defendant even if there is suspicion of guilt against the Defendant (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Do163, Nov. 30, 2007). The lower court on the premise that the Defendant driven the instant vehicle on Nov. 18, 2015, on the condition that “the Defendant driven the instant vehicle around “04:0” around November 18, 2015, the Defendant driven the instant vehicle under the influence of alcohol content 0.104% under the influence of alcohol content around 04:00, Nov. 18, 2015.

The facts charged that the Defendant driven the instant vehicle under the influence of alcohol level of 0.05% or more on November 18, 2015 due to the alteration of the indictment. ② At the time when the police was dispatched to the site on November 18, 2015, the instant vehicle was flicked, and the Defendant was flicked without putting safety belts on the instant vehicle, and the Defendant was flicked and was flicked in D, so the Defendant driven the instant vehicle around November 18, 2015.