The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. When the instant accident occurred, the Defendant did not have any intention to drive a vehicle on the road at the time of the instant accident, according to its original purpose and method of use, and the instant accident occurred only on the wind that the vehicle left behind by driving the vehicle with a view to driving the vehicle on the road. Therefore, the Defendant cannot be deemed to have driven the vehicle.

B. The lower court’s sentence of an unreasonable sentencing (fine 4,00,000) against the Defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Article 2 subparag. 26 of the Road Traffic Act provides that "driving" means using a vehicle on the road in accordance with its original use. Since the concept of driving referred to in this context includes a subjective element in light of the content of the provision, it means only intentional driving, and it does not constitute driving in a case where a vehicle is driven without any intention or involvement of a person in the vehicle (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Do1109, Apr. 23, 2004). In full view of the following circumstances recognized by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, it can be recognized that the defendant brought the vehicle to the defendant on his own will, and therefore, it cannot be deemed that there was an error of misapprehending the legal principles as to the violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving).

Therefore, this part of the defendant's argument is without merit.

① In light of the fact that the driver D of the damaged vehicle shocked to the Defendant’s vehicle stated that “the Bracker, etc. has come to and go to the victim’s vehicle after entering the Bracker, etc.,” it appears that the Defendant first followed the Bracker in order to operate the aircraft.

(2) In light of the statements, etc. made in the investigation agency D, the vehicle of the accused shall be at least two meters wide.