이 사건 공소사실의 요지는, 피고인은 2006. 10. 00. 06:00경 혈중알콜농도 0.199%의 술에 취한 상태로 부산 ■■구 ★★동에 있는 ▶삼겹살집 앞 도로에서부터 같은 동에 있는 인쇄소 앞 도로까지 약 5m의 거리를 00부0000호 승용차(이하 '이 사건 승용차'라고 한다)로 운전하였다는 것이다.

2. Determination:

A. Factual relations

In full view of the Defendant’s statement, the police interrogation protocol against BB, and the police statement protocol against CCC, each of the following facts can be recognized.

(1) CCC은 2006.10.00. 04:30경 부산 ■■구 ★★동에 있는 ▶삼겹살집 앞 도로에 이 사건 승용차를 주차하고 친구인 피고인으로 하여금 운전석에서 잠을 자도록 하였는데, 당시 승용차의 시동은 켜둔 상태로 사이드브레이크를 올려 잠그고 자동변속 기어는 중립 상태로 두었다.

(2) 이 사건 승용차 앞쪽에는 00마0000호 ▲▲▲ 승용차가 주차되어 있었는데, BBB이 같은 날 06:00경 이 사건 승용차가 위 ▲▲▲승용차를 뒤에서 충격한 상태로 멈춰져 있는 것을 발견하고 경찰에 그 사실을 신고하였다. 그때까지도 피고인은 이 사건 승용차 안에서 잠을 자고 있었다.

(3) At the time of the accident, the instant passenger car was in a state of driving in which the diversck was automatically changed, and the Defendant’s blood alcohol concentration was measured at 0.187%.

B. Determination as to whether the Defendant driven the instant car

Article 2 subparagraph 24 of the Road Traffic Act provides that the term "driving" means the use of a vehicle or horse on the road in accordance with the proper use of the vehicle or horse by its original purpose (including the operation of the vehicle or horse). Since the concept of driving as referred to in this context includes a purpose element in light of the content of the provision, it is reasonable to view that only intentional driving is meaning, and it does not fall under the case of driving without any intention or involvement of a person in the vehicle (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Do1109, Apr. 23, 2004).

In full view of the fact that the vehicle was returned to the instant case and the Defendant’s statement, etc., it can be presumed that the Defendant diversed the instant vehicle to a diversy with the automatic transmission engine, and that the said vehicle was driven in the future. It is insufficient to deem that the Defendant operated the instant vehicle as above with the intent to drive the instant vehicle, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge that the Defendant operated the instant vehicle.

Thus, the facts charged in this case constitute a case where there is no proof of crime, and thus, the defendant is acquitted under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure