The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact, the Defendant, who was parked in the underground parking lot of apartment at the time of the instant case, was in contact with the Defendant’s vehicle that was parked in the underground parking lot of apartment at the time of the instant accident. As such, the Defendant, who confirmed whether the accident occurred, had the Defendant drive the vehicle at the request of the other Party’

B. In light of the legal principles, apartment parking lots that the Defendant driven the instant car do not constitute “road” as provided by the Road Traffic Act, and thus, the crime of violating the Road Traffic Act (drinking) is not established.

(c)

The punishment sentenced by the court below to the defendant is too unreasonable because it is too unreasonable to impose the punishment (3 million won).

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below on the assertion of mistake, the defendant was found to have been driving under the influence of alcohol at the request of the other party borrower. Thus, as long as the defendant had used the vehicle according to its original purpose and method of use, he had the intention of driving under the influence of alcohol.

Since it is reasonable to see this part of the defendant's argument is without merit.

B. Article 2 subparag. 26 of the Road Traffic Act provides that "driving" means "working on a road (including places other than a road in the case of Articles 44, 45, 54, 54 (1), 148, and 148-2) in accordance with the original usage method (including operation)," and this part of the Act provides that "working" means "working on a road in accordance with its original usage method (including operation)," and it is amended to the same purport as above by Act No. 10382, Jul. 23, 2010). In addition, this part of the Act provides that "working on a road other than a road constitutes drinking under Article 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act and thus, this part of the defendant's assertion is without merit."

(c)

Sentencing is unfair.