The defendant shall be innocent.

1. On May 5, 2013, the Defendant: (a) around 23:47, while under the influence of alcohol at a 0.072% alcohol level, the Defendant driven CPE100 Orala, a 300-meter radius, from the vicinity of the former Buldong Newcom, while under the influence of alcohol at a 0.072% alcohol level.

2. As to the summary of the Defendant’s assertion of defense counsel, the Defendant, since the investigation agency since then to this court, consistently led to the Defendant’s failure to drive a stoke at the time without driving the stoke, was on board in order to reduce the speed that the control point in this case turns down due to the relation of the decline and control it, and denied the charges by stating that the Defendant did not drive the stoke.

3. Determination

A. Article 2 subparag. 26 of the Road Traffic Act provides that the term "driving" means using a motor vehicle or horse on the road in accordance with its original purpose and use (including steering). Article 2 subparag. 18 of the same Act provides that the term "motor vehicle" means a motor vehicle driven by a motor without using a railroad or a temporarily installed line, which falls under any of the following items, and thus, it is required to use a motor, such as a motor vehicle, etc. (motor vehicle and a motorcycle) in order to fall under the use of a motor by its original method, such as a motor vehicle, etc.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 98Da30834, Nov. 12, 199). Therefore, the act of driving a two-wheeled vehicle in the course of driving the engine by hand and driving the two-wheeled vehicle in the course of driving it by hand without engine operation shall not be deemed to constitute driving under the Road Traffic Act.

(However, it is aside from the fact that the engine temporarily stops the engine when it comes to a normal way while driving.

Therefore, the above charges are charged by the defendant boarding Oral Ba, starting with the engine at the time.