The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal argues that the Defendant was driving without driving a driver by proxy. However, in full view of the following facts: (a) the Defendant did not have any data to contact with the substitute driver, and the Defendant could not find the substitute driver at the site immediately after the instant traffic accident; (b) the Defendant, if the substitute driver was involved in a traffic accident while driving a vehicle, may fully recognize the fact of driving a vehicle by proxy; (c) the other party to the traffic accident stated that the Defendant did not leave the vehicle; and (d) the other party to the traffic accident was unable to view that the other person was driving on the Defendant’s vehicle.

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged and the judgment of the court below 1) The defendant is a person who violated Article 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act twice the vehicle driver's license without obtaining a driver's license, and the defendant driven the C vehicle at approximately 100 meters of the 134-ray of the two mountain-oriented apartment in the same Dong and the 134-class road in the same Dong, in the status of under the influence of alcohol of 0.187% on January 24, 2013, without obtaining a driver's license. The court below held that the court below found the defendant not guilty on the ground that the defendant could not be found guilty on the ground that the defendant could not have been found guilty on the ground that there was a conflict between the vehicle at which the defendant was on board and the vehicle at D, and that the defendant could not have been found guilty on the ground that the defendant could not have been found guilty on the ground that the defendant could not have been found guilty on the ground that he was on the part of the defendant's vehicle.

B. As to the facts charged in a criminal trial for the judgment of the court for the above trial.