A. The defendant did not have driven a vehicle while drinking alcohol as stated in the decision of the court below.

B. Even if the Defendant has driven a vehicle, the front door B in the Seo-gu, Seoyang-gu, Busan Metropolitan City does not fall under the “road” as provided by the Road Traffic Act, and thus, it cannot be punished as a crime of refusing to measure drinking.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below, it is recognized that the defendant directly drives the above vehicle at a volume of about 50 meters in order to allow the defendant to move the vehicle to the house located in the house near the house where he drinks. This constitutes the "driving" under Article 2 (26) of the Road Traffic Act, which is used in accordance with its original method of use.

B. In addition, Article 2 subparag. 26 of the Road Traffic Act provides that "driving" means using Ma in accordance with its original method of use (including operation) on a road (including places other than a road in cases falling under Articles 44, 45, 54(1), 148, and 148-2), and accordingly, the same purport was amended by Act No. 10382, Jul. 23, 2010). Accordingly, a person driving a motor vehicle at a place other than on a road under the Road Traffic Act.

Even if there are reasonable grounds to determine a person, a crime of refusing to measure drinking under Articles 148-2(1)2 and 44(2) of the Road Traffic Act is established unless a police officer refuses to comply with a measurement.

(c)

Therefore, the above argument by the defendant is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the defendant's appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.