The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the defendant only caused a proxy engineer to drive a vehicle, and has not driven a cargo vehicle while drunk as stated in the facts charged in this case.

2. The court below testified that the witness F of the court below testified as follows, i.e., "I am at the entrance of the State where I would know that I would come back immediately," and the witness E of the court below testified as "I am at the front, I would like to listen to the horses of F, I would know that I would be the guest," but the defendant tried to stop at the driver's seat and drop out with the key, and I am at another place." The above testimony of F and E is consistent and specific. ② If a substitute engineer parked a vehicle as alleged by the defendant, I will park and stop the vehicle until I would leave the scene, but it would be possible to recognize the facts of driving the vehicle as stated in the facts charged in the case.

On the other hand, the Defendant changed from the restaurant to the effect that he driven a vehicle by an agent. However, the Defendant stated at the investigative agency that he was the driver on his behalf at the time of the first investigation, but subsequently, the Defendant reversed his statement that he left the driver on his behalf before and after the G operating the restaurant, and ② G testified at the lower court that “the agent, the Defendant, and the H were seated in front, and the Defendant was on his behalf,” and the content of the G’s testimony is seated behind the driver’s seat.