The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Article 2 subparag. 26 of the Road Traffic Act provides that the term “driving” means using a vehicle or horse or tram in accordance with its original method of use.

Among them, in order to make the vehicle used according to its original method of use, it is necessary to walk the engine and operate the engine.

(See Supreme Court Decision 98Da30834 delivered on November 12, 199, and Supreme Court Decision 2009Da9294, 9300 delivered on May 28, 2009). 2. The lower court reversed the first instance judgment that found the Defendant guilty on the part of the charge of violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Bodily Injury resulting from Dangerous Driving) and acquitted the Defendant.

3. The reasoning of the lower judgment and the evidence duly admitted by the lower court reveal the following.

The so-called SETP &G functions are installed on the vehicle A7 vehicle, which is the instant vehicle, in 2013, and this function basically leads to the vehicle.

Although a driver who stops and stops the engine while continuing the balk ped, all of the vehicles are maintained in an unreshed state, and after the driver's failure to start the balk engine, the driver will start the engine again.

However, in case of failure to meet the re-working conditions of STPP &G functions, the engine will not be re-working due to the cancellation of STPP &G functions.

B. The Defendant, as stated in the facts of the crime of the first instance judgment, stopped the instant vehicle at the location of the instant accident and opened a door to the driver’s seat in order to let the G, who is the seat after driving under the influence of alcohol as stated in paragraph (1) of the same Article, and the J was on board the instant vehicle.

It seems that the starting of the vehicle will completely take place due to the cancellation of the STP &O function by the Defendant's internalation of the vehicle in this case.

J, without recognizing these facts, divided the beginning tacker, but the starting tacker did not take place, and rather, the vehicle was pushed ahead by operating the brakes.

The defendant is driving in the seat of the driver.