[2] The case holding that a public parking lot installed for public interest purposes such as resolving a parking shortage in a regional daily zone constitutes a road under Article 2 subparagraph 1 of the Road Traffic Act as an open place for the passage of an unspecified number of people or vehicles

[3] The meaning of "driving" under Article 2 subparagraph 19 of the Road Traffic Act, and whether moving of a vehicle by walking along the starting of the vehicle in order to ensure the convenience of other vehicles parked on the road constitutes "driving" under the Road Traffic Act (affirmative)

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged that the public parking lot of this case, which the defendant driven under the influence of alcohol, was installed at the Sung-gu Office for the public interest purpose of resolving parking accidents in this area and preventing traffic congestion resulting therefrom, not for the owner of a building and customers, and it is not for the manager to stay and manage it, and it is not for the manager to have access to it from time to time, and it is operated without charge, and it is possible for many unspecified persons to use it at all times, and both sides of the parking lot are in contact with the general roads, and two sides of the parking lot are accessible to each side of the Dong/west, and it is used as a vehicle traffic for the passage of both roads at the time when there is traffic congestion. The court below determined that the above parking lot is a road as provided in Article 2 subparagraph 1 of the Road Traffic Act, which is open to the public for the passage of an unspecified large number of people or vehicles.

Examining the aforementioned legal principles and related evidence in light of the records, we affirm the above recognition and determination by the court below as just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to roads under the Road Traffic Act or contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal.

2. Article 2 subparagraph 19 of the Road Traffic Act provides that the term "driving" means the use of a vehicle on the road in accordance with the original method of use. The concept of driving in this context refers to the act of intentional driving because it includes the purpose element in light of the contents of the provision (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Do109 delivered on April 23, 2004). In addition, if the vehicle moves along the starting of a vehicle on the road, even if it is intended to move the vehicle on the road for the convenience of access to other vehicles parked, it is used in accordance with the original method of use and thus constitutes "driving" in the Road Traffic Act (see Supreme Court Decision 93Do828 delivered on June 22, 1993).

In this regard, the court below's finding that the defendant intentionally driven the vehicle of this case is just, and there is no error of law such as intentional driving or misunderstanding of the legal principles on driving under the Road Traffic Act, contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal.

3. In the instant case where the Defendant was sentenced to a sentence of less than 10 years of imprisonment, the allegation in the grounds of appeal that the amount of punishment is unreasonable is not a legitimate ground of appeal.

4. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Shin Shin-chul (Presiding Justice)