beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The statements of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles D, E, and F are not consistent with one another, and there is no credibility for the Defendant, at the time, to change the vehicle language into D’s body, etc., and there was no intention to use the vehicle according to its original method of use. Therefore, the crime of violating the Road Traffic Act is not established.
Nevertheless, the court below found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case where the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol. The court below erred by misunderstanding the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of
B. The sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant (two years of suspended execution in August, probation, and compliance driving 40 hours) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. (1) Article 2 subparagraph 19 of the Road Traffic Act provides that the term "driving" means the use of a vehicle on the road in accordance with its original purpose and method of use. The term "driving" refers to the act of intentional driving, since the concept of driving includes a subjective element in light of its provision (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Do1109, Apr. 23, 2004). In addition, if a vehicle moves along the starting of a vehicle on the road, if it moves the vehicle on the road, it is intended to move the vehicle that was parked for the convenience of access to another parked vehicle, it is used in accordance with its original method of use, and it constitutes "driving" under the Road Traffic Act.
(See Supreme Court Decision 93Do828 delivered on June 22, 1993, Supreme Court Decision 2005Do3781 delivered on September 15, 2005, etc.). Shesheshes Sheshes Sheshes Shes Shes Shes Shes Shes, and the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted by the court below, i.e., (i) statements made by C, F and reporter E, who are control police officers, are inconsistent with the minor part, but the vehicle of the defendant takes the starting.