The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant is innocent. The summary of this judgment shall be notified publicly.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is without merit in driving the instant vehicle, and there is no fact that the instant vehicle was driven at the time.

The judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous.

2. Determination

A. On September 28, 201, the Defendant issued a summary order of one million won to a fine for a violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving) at the Seogu District Court Branch Branch of the Daegu District Court on September 28, 201; on June 14, 2004, the Daegu District Court issued a summary order of four million won for a violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving) at the Daegu District Court on April 7, 2004; and on February 12, 2004, the Defendant issued a summary order of two million won for a fine for a violation of the Road Traffic Act (non-licensed driving) at the Daegu District Court on April 7, 2004; and on June 12, 2004, the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of two years for a violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving on drinking) at the Daegu District Court on June 6, 204 and was sentenced to a suspended sentence of

On October 10, 2012, the Defendant, without obtaining a driver’s license at around 00:40 on October 10, 2012, driven a DNA driver’s car owned by the Defendant at one meter in front of Daegu-gu, Daegu-gu, with a blood alcohol level of 0.132%.

B. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged by comprehensively taking account of all the evidence as indicated in its judgment.

C. The Defendant consistently stated that the instant vehicle was driven by the instant vehicle that had been parked near the house of G from the investigative agency to the court of the trial at the court of the trial, and the Defendant stated that there was no fact that he had driven the instant vehicle (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Do3822, Jul. 24, 2008). Of the police interrogation protocol against the Defendant, the Defendant stated that “the Defendant was forced to drive the vehicle in the future,” but the Defendant withdrawn and denied it, and it is difficult to deem that the protocol of interrogation of the suspect was admissible (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Do382, Jul. 24, 2008).