The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Fact-misunderstanding driver's vehicle by driving a vehicle of the defendant on behalf of the defendant, and parked the vehicle of the defendant in front of the vehicle parked in a parking zone after having arrived at the parking lot of the apartment of the residential area, and left the place after making the flag "parking" (P). The defendant operated the flag on the premise that the vehicle of another vehicle operator could be changed into a "n" (N)". The defendant was behind the vehicle of the defendant, and the vehicle of the defendant was placed in the "driving" (D) while the defendant was trying to neutralize the vehicle, and the vehicle of the defendant conflicts with the damaged vehicle by moving in the future.

In other words, the Defendant’s vehicle was moved due to the malfunction of fishing operation, and it was the Defendant’s intention to drive.

Therefore, this cannot be said to be the “driving” under the Road Traffic Act.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (an amount of KRW 3 million) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Article 2 subparag. 26 of the Road Traffic Act, based on the assertion of factual misunderstanding, defines “the operation” as “the operation (including operation) of a horse on the road (including places other than the road in cases falling under Articles 44, 45, 54(1), 148, and 148-2) according to its original purpose and use.

The concept of driving in this context refers to the intentional act of driving since it includes the objective element in light of the content of the provision (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Do1109, Apr. 23, 2004). Also, if the vehicle moving along the road on the road, even if it aims to move the vehicle parked for the convenience of other vehicles' access, it is used in accordance with the original method of use, and it constitutes "driving under the Road Traffic Act" (see Supreme Court Decisions 93Do828, Jun. 22, 1993; 93Do828, Jun. 22, 1993); and