2. Determination

A. Article 2 subparag. 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. Since the concept of driving refers to a purpose element in light of the provision, it refers only to the act of driving, and it does not constitute driving in the case of driving a motor vehicle without the intention or involvement of a person in the motor vehicle (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Do109, Apr. 23, 2004).

However, in light of the following facts acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this court, the possibility that the defendant's vehicle did not walk on the vehicle but turned on the way where a slope was cut off in a neutral state cannot be ruled out, and if so, it cannot be evaluated as an intentional driving act.

(1) On January 14, 2016, the Defendant: (a) placed a vehicle on the road front of D main points at the time of a fire; (b) opened a lane and a driver’s seat again at around 19:45; and (c) opened a door to the lane and a driver’s seat again; (d) one-half (1-half) after the vehicle moved slowly in the front and stopped the vehicle on the left.

(CCTV image). (2) The F in the main point was to hear the collision noise, out of it and Defendant’s lane, and the Defendant reported to the police without a drunk conversation. At the time, the Defendant’s vehicle was not affected by the vision and did not turn on the speed.

(3) The police officer called up and confirmed whether he drives under influence of alcohol, and the defendant is driving.