도로교통법위반(음주운전)
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. In fact, the defendant, at the apartment parking lot, was driven under the influence of alcohol for moving parking at the request of the security guards of the management office, and the parking lot cannot be regarded as a road under the Road Traffic Act, and such act does not violate the social rules, and it does not constitute a justifiable act under Article 20 of the Criminal Act.
B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (an amount of KRW 1.5 million) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. As to the assertion of mistake, Article 2 subparag. 26 of the Road Traffic Act includes driving of a motor vehicle under Article 148-2 of the Road Traffic Act at a place, other than on the road, in accordance with its original method. Even if the place where the defendant driven a motor vehicle is a parking lot, not on the road, it does not obstruct the establishment of a crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act (breathing) inasmuch as the defendant drives a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol.
Therefore, this part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.
In addition, the "act that does not violate social norms" as provided in Article 20 of the Criminal Act refers to an act that can be accepted in light of the overall spirit of legal order or the social ethics or social norms surrounding the act. Thus, if a certain act satisfies the requirements such as the motive or legitimacy of the act, the means or method of the act, the reasonableness of the means or method, the balance of the legal interests of protected interests and infringed interests, urgency, and supplementary nature that there is no other means or method than the act, it constitutes a justifiable act (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Do8530, Feb. 25, 2005). However, even considering the circumstances in which the defendant was driving the drinking of this case, it satisfies the requirements of justifiable act such as urgency or supplementary nature.
Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.
B. As to the wrongful argument of sentencing, the Defendant is attempting to commit the instant crime.