The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The gist of the grounds for appeal is that the Defendant driven a passenger car while under influence of alcohol.

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged was around 00:20 on December 13, 2014, the Defendant driven the C-learning car in the solar public parking lot located in the Taean-gun, Taean-gun, Taean-nam, Taean-gun, Taean-gun, with the blood alcohol concentration of 0.119%.

B. The judgment of the court below 1) Article 2 subparagraph 26 of the Road Traffic Act provides that the term "driving" means using a vehicle on the road according to its original use. The concept of driving refers only to the act of driving, since it includes the intended element in light of the contents of the provision, and it does not constitute driving in the case of driving a vehicle without any intention or involvement of the person in the vehicle. Therefore, a person goes through the starting of a motor for other purposes without any intention to allow him/her to drive the vehicle. Therefore, it is not the case of driving a motor vehicle where a person drives a vehicle on the road due to the power of driving the motor by installing devices necessary for the generation of the motor, such as the deflacing of the motor, such as the deflacing machine, or due to the condition of road, etc. (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Do1109, Apr. 23, 2004).

3. The defendant did not have any intention to drive because he had a lot of snow at the time.

However, it was difficult to enter the vehicle to avoid drilling and operate it.