The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 5,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Although the summary of the grounds for appeal can be sufficiently recognized that the defendant is the driver of the motor vehicle (hereinafter referred to as the "motor vehicle of this case") stated in the facts charged, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles or misconception of the facts by not guilty of the defendant.

2. Comprehensively taking account of the testimony of the witness F of the lower court, the Defendant’s legal statement, and the witness’s report made by a witness suspected of driving alcohol, the fact that the Defendant was an acting engineer for driving of the instant vehicle after drinking, and the fact that the Defendant left the instant vehicle after stopping the instant vehicle on the road due to a dispute arising in the course of driving by an acting engineer.

However, according to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the defendant was not present at the rear seat at the time when he was found to police officers, but was seated at the driver's seat and was able to take hand, and the vehicle door was parked at the driver's seat, the defendant's vehicle was stopped in front of the first line of the fourth line of the road, the vehicle of the defendant was parked in front of the first line of the fourth line of the vehicle, and the other vehicles were found to have driven the vehicle of the defendant by avoiding the vehicle of the defendant, and in full view of the above facts acknowledged, the defendant driven the vehicle after the substitute engineer left the vehicle of this case.

It is inevitable to see.

In addition, the term "driving" under the Road Traffic Act means using a vehicle on the road according to its original use method. Since the concept of driving refers to a purpose element in light of the provision, it refers only to an intentional act, and in the case of driving without any intention or involvement of a person in the vehicle, it does not constitute driving (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Do1109 delivered on April 23, 2004). Thus, the defendant's purpose other than the driving of the vehicle in this case is not the driving of the vehicle in this case, and it is for the defendant to turn on the purpose or air condition, for example, other than the driving of the vehicle in this case.