The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The fact that the defendant alleged the misunderstanding of the fact was moving the vehicle on the vehicle in order to turn on the vehicle's seat, but the fact that the vehicle was 10 cm after the wind on the sidewalk which the vehicle was fireed in the future, and the vehicle was driven by about 10 cm, as stated in the judgment of the court below, is erroneous in the misapprehension of the fact that the court below convicted the defendant.

B. The lower court’s punishment (an amount of KRW 3 million) is too unreasonable to deem the sentencing unfair.

2. On the ground of factual mistake, driving under the Road Traffic Act refers to driving of a motor vehicle on the road (including a place other than the road in the case of driving under drinking) according to its original purpose and use (Article 2 subparag. 26 of the Road Traffic Act). Therefore, a certain person, without any intention to allow him/her to drive a motor, she walked the motor for another purpose. However, the motor of a motor for another purpose, such as using the motor, such as using a de facto waterway, does not fall under driving of the motor vehicle if he/she gets driven by using the power of driving the motor, or driving the motor vehicle on the road due to a safe parking condition or road condition (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 200Do1109, Apr. 23, 2004). According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the defendant again 200 after driving the motor of a motor vehicle, which he/she denied from the investigation agency, but after driving the motor of this case (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Do135 after the CCTV.