2. Determination:

A. The Defendant did not drive the vehicle at the time of his argument by the Defendant and his defense counsel; however, after requesting the driver's office to drive the vehicle on behalf of him, the Defendant was leaving the driver's seat of the instant vehicle, but the air was in the state of "N", and there was a little slope on the road at the time, there was only a possibility that the instant vehicle was parked on a low level and was parked on the road.

B. Article 2, subparagraph 19 of the Road Traffic Act provides that the term "driving" means the use of a vehicle on the road according to its original use method. The concept of driving in this context includes the original elements in light of the content of the provision, so it is not sufficient to mean only intentional driving, in the case of a vehicle driving without any intention or involvement of a person in the vehicle, and in the case of a vehicle driving without any involvement, it does not fall under driving, and in the case of a vehicle driving, the operation of the engine is required to complete the so-called operation, and it does not fall under the case of a vehicle driving due to the unsound parking condition, road conditions, etc.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2004Do1109 Decided April 23, 2004, and Supreme Court Decision 98Da30384 Decided November 12, 199, etc.). The evidence as to the facts charged of the instant case pertains to witness F, G, H, and I’s statements, traffic accident occurrence reports, principal driver detection reports, investigation reports on October 11, 2012, and images of field photographing photographs, etc. However, according to the above evidence, the instant vehicle is shocked after the front part of the vehicle, which moved at a place where the said five meters or more on the road, and was parked as the front part of the vehicle.