The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. After misunderstanding of facts (the point of driving a motor vehicle) caused a traffic accident while driving a motor vehicle while drinking alcohol, the Defendant was able to take a drinking test by again breath and 2 diseases to the police, and then self-denunciation of the police.

The defendant's blood alcohol concentration stated in the facts charged in the instant case is inaccurate because the defendant does not reflect additional alcohol after a traffic accident.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment, which found the Defendant guilty of drinking driving among the facts charged in the instant case.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) The lower court found the Defendant guilty of all of the facts charged in the instant case by comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, namely, the Defendant’s confession and the supporting evidence as indicated in its reasoning. 2) In determining the credibility of a confession, the lower court should take into account all the circumstances, including whether the content of the confession statement itself is objectively rational, the motive and reason for the confession, what is the reason why the confession was caused, what is the circumstance leading up to the confession, and what is not contrary to or contradictory to the confession among the circumstantial evidence other than the confession.

Furthermore, in cases where the Defendant consistently led to the confession from the investigative agency to the date of trial, and reversed his/her own confession from a certain trial date, in addition to examining the credibility of the confession statement, the following should be examined: (a) together with the motive, reason and circumstance behind the reversal of the confession, in light of the progress of the statements made by the investigative agency and the contents of the statement; and (b) whether there is evidence supporting the reversal.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015Do17869, Oct. 13, 2016). In light of the foregoing legal doctrine, the lower court, the lower court, and the lower court were duly adopted and examined.