The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The main reason for appeal is that the place where the defendant drives the vehicle is a private person who is not a general roadway, so the defendant's act does not constitute a crime of driving under the Road Traffic Act.

Nevertheless, the court below found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case. The court below erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of judgment

2. Article 2 Subparag. 26 of the Road Traffic Act defines “driving” as “driving a vehicle on a “road” in accordance with its original method of use, and provides that, in cases of Article 44 of the Road Traffic Act, which prohibits driving under the influence of alcohol, and Article 148-2 of the Road Traffic Act, which are penal provisions therefor, it includes the use in “place other than a road”.

Therefore, even if the place where the defendant driven is not a road, the defendant's violation of the Road Traffic Act is established as long as the defendant driven while under the influence of alcohol as stated in the facts charged of this case. Thus, the defendant's above assertion is rejected.

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.