A. In misunderstanding of facts, the Defendant and K, L, and P, while drinking alcohol at a restaurant, moved to the B-wing garage owned by L (hereinafter “instant vehicle”) first, and the Defendant was driving the instant vehicle without taking a bracing vehicle on the instant vehicle seeking to eroconcing air conditioners for P. However, according to the characteristics of the water-speed vehicle parked in the form of a part, the instant vehicle was parked in the front of the instant vehicle, depending on the characteristics of the water-speed vehicle parked in the front of the instant vehicle.

Therefore, the Defendant did not “driving” or “driving” the instant vehicle.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found all of the facts charged of this case guilty is erroneous.

B. The sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant (5 million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) As to the assertion of mistake of facts, Article 2 subparagraph 19 of the Road Traffic Act provides that "driving" means using a vehicle on the road in accordance with its original purpose and method of use. The concept of driving referred to in this context refers to an intentional driving, since it includes a purpose element in light of its provision (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Do1109, Apr. 23, 2004), it is necessary to use a motor in order to constitute an automobile driving, i.e., a vehicle driving, according to its original method of use, and in light of the original function of the vehicle and the legislative intent of the Road Traffic Act, in a case where the vehicle is intended to newly develop a vehicle in the course of parking, it is insufficient to say that the vehicle was used according to its original method of use. The completion of so-called operation is required, and it is also sufficient (see Supreme Court Decision 98Da38304, Nov. 12, 199; 203Da383805, Feb. 25, 2005).