The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.

1. The accused of the grounds for appeal has no record of driving under influence of alcohol;

The defendant requested a substitute driver who was unable to drive a car after driving the car with the fee and drinking, and the article was operated for about 5 meters of the car. However, there are differences in the expenses of the substitute driver, so the substitute driver left the car and left the car. The defendant only sleep the car into the driver's seat.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below that found the defendant guilty is erroneous and adversely affected by the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Summary of the facts charged and judgment of the court of original judgment

A. The summary of the facts charged is a person engaging in driving a rocketing car.

On January 25, 2015, at around 03:41, the Defendant driven the said car from the influence to the influence of 0.092% of alcohol level from the influence to the E-cafeteria located in Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Nowon-gu D.

B. The lower court’s judgment found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in the instant case by comprehensively taking account of the various descriptions of traffic accident reports (actual status investigation reports), control records, main driver’s license reports, 112 reported case processing reports, and images of accident site and photographic evidence materials submitted by the prosecutor as evidence.

3. In the judgment of this court, the recognition of facts constituting an offense should be based on strict evidence of probative value, which makes a judge not to have any reasonable doubt. Thus, in a case where the prosecutor’s proof fails to sufficiently reach the extent that such conviction would lead to such conviction, even if the defendant’s assertion or defense is inconsistent or unreasonable, it should be determined in the interests of the defendant even if there is suspicion of guilt, such as the defendant’s assertion or defense is inconsistent or unreasonable.

According to the evidence presented by the court of original judgment, at the time when the police controlled the defendant as a drinking driver, the defendant is at the seat of a car driving.