The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the Defendant asked an on-site driver to drive on behalf of the on-site driver, and there was a dispute over the direction of the operation of the driver on-site and the vehicle, or the Defendant knew of the route of the vehicle under the influence of alcohol, or the substitute driver stopped the vehicle of the Defendant and moves the Defendant to another place on the vehicle.

No defendant has driven a drinking alcohol.

However, the judgment of the court below that found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. The lower court also rejected the Defendant’s allegation that the Defendant alleged the same facts as the grounds for appeal, and that the lower court convicted the Defendant of the instant facts charged in full view of the following circumstances.

1) 피고인은 운전석에서 시동을 켠 채 기어는 주차 상태로 하여 있다가 경찰관이 차 문을 두들겨 깨어났는데, 피고인의 변명대로 대리 운전기사가 대리 운전을 하다가 피고인을 방치하고 현장을 이탈한 것이 사실이라면, 피고인이 차의 운전석에 앉아 있다가 경찰관에게 적발되는 것은 극히 이례적인 일에 속한다.

2) The police appears to have been called out after receiving a report that the traffic conditions around the GeumegIC are fixed. The place where the vehicle on which the defendant was parked is located is the middle of the two-lanes of the opposite road between the water per minute and the two-lanes of the opposite road (rounding to a certain side). The situation where the defendant directly driven and temporarily stops, and the substitute driver is not in line with the situation where the defendant left the scene, leaving the scene at the end of the bidding with the defendant.

3) The Defendant had been driving by proxy on behalf of the No.S. officer who had been in the vicinity of the particulars.

One, dacting alcohol together with other evidence corresponding thereto;

F-.