The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles) is as follows: (a) the place of accident in this case can be used as a road or a passage through which a right-hand passage can be entered from the area south to the area of the river basin; (b) it cannot be deemed a place used only as a construction vehicle or a parking lot; and (c) it constitutes a “road” where a large number of unspecified persons or vehicles pass along, the public nature of which is recognized.

Therefore, with respect to the violation of the Road Traffic Act (unlicensed Driving) and the violation of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents under the premise that the location of the instant accident does not constitute “road”, the lower court which rendered a judgment dismissing the public prosecution, erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. According to the health stand as to whether the site of the accident in this case constitutes “road” or not, according to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the passage of the construction site in which the defendant had driven a vehicle is limited to the place where only the persons related to the construction site enter and use it as a parking lot, and it cannot be found that the general public or vehicles are used as a passage bypassing the general vehicle, and therefore, it cannot be seen as a passage through which the general public or vehicles can pass by themselves. Thus, the location of the accident in this case where the defendant driven a vehicle cannot be seen as a road under the Road Traffic Act.

Therefore, the court below is justified in dismissing the prosecution against the violation of the Road Traffic Act (unlicensed driving) and the violation of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents and the Compensation for Motor Vehicle Damages, and there is no error of misconception of facts as alleged by the prosecutor.

3. If so, the prosecutor's appeal is without merit. Thus, Article 364 (3) of the Criminal Procedure Act is applicable.