The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The gist of the grounds for appeal and the period for submission of the statement of reasons for appeal and the defendant's written opinion submitted on June 25, 2018 are examined to the extent that it supplements legitimate grounds for appeal.

A. misunderstanding of the legal principles or mistake of facts, ① at the time of the instant case, the Defendant 1 flicked a flick and flicked the vehicle, and flicked the vehicle, and also, the place was an apartment underground parking lot, which is not a road, and thus, the driving of the vehicle does not constitute “driving” under Article 2 subparag. 26 of the Road Traffic Act.

Therefore, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to “driving” under the Road Traffic Act, which affected the conclusion of the judgment (hereinafter “the Defendant’s assertion”). (2) The Defendant, at the time of the instant case, was able to recognize the fact that he was requested by a police officer to take a drinking test, and left the vehicle only in the state of locking, and thus, it is objectively clear that the Defendant’s refusal to take a measurement by the Defendant is objectively evident.

shall not be deemed to exist.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the crime of misunderstanding facts or refusing to measure alcohol, which affected the conclusion of the judgment (hereinafter “B assertion”). B. The Defendant, a mental or physical loss, or a mental or physical weak, was under the influence of alcohol at the time of committing the instant crime.

2. Determination

A. 1) According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below as to the assertion of misunderstanding of legal principles or mistake of facts, the defendant at the time of the instant case was found to have moved the said vehicle by using balk in hand upon receiving a request from other residents for moving the vehicle from other residents, and by manipulating the balk after driving the vehicle.

The defendant, not a driver's seat, was driving a vehicle by leaving a Dong in the chief place as above and manipulating a train.

Even if so, this vehicle is in accordance with its original method of use.