1. On July 18, 2013, the Defendant: (a) around 21:10, the Defendant: (b) had reasonable grounds to recognize that the Defendant driven a drinking-free vehicle under the influence of alcohol, such as drinking, driving the said fluor while drinking the fluor under the influence of alcohol from the front of the Gandong-gun, Gandong-gun, Gandong-gun, Gandong-gun, Gandong-gun, Gandong-gun, Gandong-gun; and (c) around 21:47 on the same day, the Defendant was demanded three times to respond to a drinking-free test by the said D, such as a fluor of a police box called upon receiving the said traffic accident and carrying the fluor of a police box to C under the influence of alcohol, and a fluoring snow, etc.

Nevertheless, the defendant did not comply with a police officer's request for sobage measurement without justifiable grounds.

2. Determination:

A. Article 44(2) of the Road Traffic Act provides that “When deemed necessary for the safety of traffic and the prevention of danger and there exist reasonable grounds to recognize that a driver has driven a motor vehicle, etc. while under the influence of alcohol in violation of the provisions of paragraph (1), police officers may take a pulmonary test as to whether the driver has driven. In this case, the driver shall comply with a breath test by a police officer.” Article 150(2) of the Road Traffic Act provides that “a person who has reasonable grounds to recognize that a person is under the influence of alcohol and fails to comply with a breath test by a police officer pursuant to the provisions of Article 44(2) shall be punished by imprisonment for not

In this context, the measurement of alcohol conducted on the grounds that there are considerable grounds to recognize that the driving of a motor vehicle was conducted without any need for the safety of traffic and the prevention of danger has meaning as an investigation procedure for collecting evidence of the criminal act of a motor vehicle driving already conducted.