[1] The meaning of "driving" under the Road Traffic Act

[2] In a case where a motor vehicle was driven for any other purpose without the intention of allowing the driver to drive the motor vehicle, but the motor vehicle was driven due to the loss of trees, etc., whether it constitutes the motor vehicle driving (negative)

[1] Article 2 subparagraph 19 of the Road Traffic Act provides that the term "driving" means the use of a vehicle on the road according to the original use method of the vehicle. Since the concept of driving in this context includes the original elements in light of the content of the provision, it is not a driving in the case of a vehicle driving without the intention or involvement of a person in the vehicle.

[2] A motor vehicle was driven at the start of a motor vehicle for other purposes without any intention to allow any person to drive the motor vehicle. A motor vehicle is not a motor vehicle driving in the case where a motor vehicle was driven by the power of driving the motor, or a motor vehicle was driven by a motor vehicle due to a defective parking condition or road condition.

[1] Article 2 subparagraph 19 of the Road Traffic Act / [2] Article 2 subparagraph 19 of the Road Traffic Act

[2] Supreme Court Decision 94Do1522 delivered on September 9, 1994 (Gong1994Ha, 2688), Supreme Court Decision 98Da30834 delivered on November 12, 1999 (Gong199Ha, 2477)

Defendant

Prosecutor

Suwon District Court Decision 2003No4268 delivered on January 29, 2004

The appeal is dismissed.

Article 2 subparagraph 19 of the Road Traffic Act provides that the term "driving" means the use of a vehicle on the road according to its original use. Since the concept of driving refers to a purpose element in light of the provisions of the Road Traffic Act, it refers only to driving act, and in the case of driving a motor vehicle without any intention or involvement of a person in the motor vehicle, it does not constitute driving. Therefore, without the intention of allowing any person to drive the motor, he/she goes at the starting of the motor for other purposes without any intention, but he/she does not fall under driving the motor.

In light of the records, the judgment of the court below is just, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence against the rules of evidence.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below and the record, the defendant, under the influence of alcohol, kiddddly driven the scam to drive the scam in the car, and caused the motor to go on the scam, or failed to take safety measures when first parked, due to the motor's driving force, and caused a lot of scambling paths depending on the motor's driving force, and shocked the side of the victim's vehicle. However, in light of the above legal principles, the defendant cannot be said to have driven the motor vehicle.

Although the reasoning of the court below is insufficient, it is proper to hold the defendant not guilty of the facts charged for the violation of the Road Traffic Act because the defendant cannot be deemed to have driven a motor vehicle as stated in the judgment, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence affecting the judgment or any violation of the misapprehension of the legal principles concerning the driving of a

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Han-gu (Presiding Justice)