The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
1. In light of the credibility of the statement made by the reporter F in the summary of the grounds for appeal, and the facts that the front part of the Defendant’s vehicle surface was not milched at the time of enforcement, but the following surface was milched, etc., the Defendant may sufficiently recognize the facts that the Defendant driven at the time of the instant crime
2. On October 7, 2017, the Defendant: (a) around 07:20 on the charge of the instant case, at the front of C in the south-gu, Nam-gu, Chungcheongnam-gu; (b) was under the influence of alcohol 0.101% in a two-meter section of alcohol level; and (c) was under the influence of alcohol 0.101% in a two-meter range of alcohol level, the Defendant
3. The statement of F in the judgment of the court below is difficult to believe on the ground that the statement itself is not consistent with the statement itself, and the statements by enforcement officers are basically based on F’s report and statement, and as such, F’s statement is difficult to believe, and if the front part of the road surface of the Defendant was parked at the time of enforcement, it can be said that another vehicle that was parked at that location could have moved. Such circumstance alone is difficult to serve as evidence of the facts charged as to the fact that the Defendant left behind the Defendant’s vehicle at that time. The evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to find the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in the instant case, and it constitutes a case where there is no evidence to prove the crime due to lack of any other evidence to prove it.
4. The Defendant asserts that, while consistently with the investigative agency from this time to this court, he/she was under drinking alcohol at that time, he/she does not have any fact as stated in the facts charged.
The evidence consistent with or consistent with the facts charged in the instant case is each statement at the investigation agency of F, a reporter of drunk driving, and at the court of original instance, G’s investigation agency, a crackdown police officer, and at the court of original instance, and H’s statement at the court of original instance, a crackdown police officer, etc.
First, with respect to F's statement, F's first is a F's bicycle.